Talk:British Airways/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Contents

Casino Royale

Tried removing the reference to British Airways deleting Richard Branson from Casino Royale. I cited the fact that it is not really notable or controversial and was just an over zealous marketing error. The section has been expanded and added back to controversies. I dont want to delete it again without a concensus but my point is that in the 88 year history of the airline it is really not that notable. It certainly is not controversial, press coverage is more in amusement rather than it being a controversy. It might qualify as a sideline in the mention of Casino Royale in trivia but even that is doubtfull. Interested if any watchers have an opinion.MilborneOne 12:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

BA did the same thing with another movie a couple years ago that featured Virgin's UCS and has probably done it multiple other times. I wouldn't say it's that it is very controversial, most people seem think it's more funny than angering. NcSchu 12:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I flew recently on a Virgin flight, and having heard reports about BA supposidly removing Richard Branson I noticed that the scene wasn't present on his own airline. Usual rubbish you see in newspapers. 81.5.185.229 19:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

there is also a consensus elsewhere in this talk section that the Casino Royale mentions should be removed, I also agree 100% so I'll get rid of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakehandsman (talkcontribs) 14:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Incidents

Two incidents of BA 747s with single engine failures are included in the incident list. Are these noteworthy because the flight continued? I am aware of an incident in (approximately) June 1978 when a BA 747 en-route from Heathrow to Hong Kong via Bombay lost power from one engine three hours into the flight. The aircraft dumped fuel and returned for a landing at Heathrow. There were no injuries.

They are included because they happened to the same aircraft within a short period of time and because the incident, or at least the initial one, was highly criticised; the incident you have noted is not as notable. NcSchu 16:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I think there are problems with this based on the definition of a notable incident. It seems opinions vary and some incidents are dismissed entirely at what seems like the discretion of the most recent user. Unless there are a set of guidelines how is it possible to agree what is a noteworthy incident. (Re minor collision at heathrow).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.25.223 (talk)
There are actually definitions of what a "notable incident" is. Check WikiProject Airlines for more information. The minor collision you noted is not notable because collisions at airports happen very frequently, the fact that this happens to have gotten slightly more press is irrelevant, especially when it's not very serious. NcSchu(Talk) 12:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Just to support NcSchu as I have on more than once removed the recent minor incident. Although it is my opinion that it is not-notable and not than uncommon I was also following project guidelines and precedents. Please remember that just because it is in the news one-day it does not make it notable. MilborneOne 15:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't find anything on notability under the Airline article guidelines. can you link directly to the page? After some searching i was able to find a definition relating to the 'List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft' page.(WP:ADL) I agree that Heathrow collision was minor and unsuitable for this page however the counter argument is that such errors at large UK airports occur - does any reference exist to this currently? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.240.160 (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Go down to Structure and then look where it says "Incidents and Accidents". Here, I'll just quote it for you, "Major incidents or ones with fatalities over the airline's history." NcSchu(Talk) 03:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In May 2005, I had trip from Phoenix Arizona to Ethiopia with my son and four laggages.All my laggages were perfectly measured and passed checkin in.When we arrived to London, we made transfer from one aircraft and another.At this point, we were forced to load our carry on stuff and to the baggage because of the smaller size of aircraft.Out of four laggages, we received half in Bole addis ababa- Ethiopia.What about the other half? There is no answer up to this moment. If British airway is the only flight left on this planet, I don't recommend to any one to use it, leave alone me.BA has the worst customer service ever, bad business practice, poor reputation.Do you ever run business by undermining customer service issues? Do you over look customer service issues? Please don't conduct any business if you don't have any clue about the value of customer. Don't let any issue unresolved, you will deal with it for the rest of your life or up to your generation yet to come.My concern is not about two laggages but questioning that how many people could be treated the same way? if BA has reported a big revenue, it means a lot of abuses occurred.A lot of businesses? a lot of abuses? Prior to making any reservation with BA, consider this comment for your safety and for your stuff safety. I hope this information might help a lot people from becoming victims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.244.131 (talk) 06:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
This is not the place for this kind of discussion!!!!!!!!!!, go elsewhere to vent your spleen!!Petebutt (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Split Engineering section?

I think this is far too detailed for this article. I have cut it down be removing repitition and a general cleanup. However it still sits oddly in the article in my opinion. If this is really such an important part of BA I suggest splitting it into a new article. If it isn't really that important I suggest people can find out about it at the relevant BA website. Mark83 09:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I would support your suggestion that the engineering section should be split out to a separate article.MilborneOne 11:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't normally fast track it like this, but given your support and the sentiments expressed above by Greenboxed and NcSchu I'm going to go ahead with the split. Mark83 11:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Executive Club

I noticed the existing text on Tier Points for renewals was a little simplistic (4 Full Fare Returns for Silver, which of course is only true for long haul to US Eastern Seaboard or further), so had a go at expanding this, including trying to delineate the Fare Basis codes that pertain. I think what's there is a fair attempt, but if anyone reading this has access to the latest Executive Club Inventory Bucket mappings they may like to check this over ... Bill Martin 21:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the Executive Club bit is advertising and should be made even more simplistic, almost could be a one liner, in fact the first sentence would probably be enough. If readers are that interested then I suspect all this information is on the BA website.MilborneOne 21:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm 50:50 on whether or not this section should be condensed: the retentionist argument would be that although it would be an entirely reasonable assumption to assume you could find the stuff I added in as to Eligibility etc. on BA's website, I couldn't find it there today :-( Bill Martin 21:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
You could try [1].MilborneOne 21:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
If you use the online calculator [2] the only distinction of Inventory Bucket it makes is between Fully Flexible Economy and "Lowest". As I tried to cover in the table, some discount fares are TP earning, some are not.Bill Martin 07:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've retitle this section to the generic Loyalty Program.Bill Martin 07:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the reference to earning tier points to a more simple and correct version. You only earn no tier points and 25% miles on cheap Euro & World Traveller fares. If you purchase a Y, B or H fare in economy you earn tier points and 100% miles. Anything in a premium cabin regardless of flexibility earns full tier points and miles for that class of service. If anyone is interested I can provide pictures of Blue, Silver and Gold cards to replace the one blue one. I have another separate picture of a Premier card a friend provided me with if anyone cares. Premier technically isn't part of the Executive Club but it is mentioned. I'm new to Wikipedia so am still trying to figure out how to include my own pictures! Thanks Fraser. 4.45am, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Made minor simplification as the previous amend means no longer need "Full Fare" in the example. Restored "Loyalty Program". Bill Martin (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Side template - needed there?

A question for the BA article contributors. Is the template Template:British Airways really needed on the right hand side where it is. As it is a navigational template, it really should be at the bottom of the page along with the other templates, and as it is done on other airline pages. I am proposing that the template be changed to this template User:Russavia/BA and moved to the bottom of the page. Reasons.

  • Firstly, no other airline articles have such a template there (thankfully) and in the interests of uniformity across articles, it would be best to move it down to the bottom of the page.
  • Secondly, to my eyes (and doubtless many others I would gander a good guess) it is unsightly where it is.
  • Thirdly, it is not collapsable, so that those who don't want to see the template have no choice about it.
  • Fourthly, the way the template I propose is set up it is easy for people to edit as required, instead of having to hunt thru source to try and find the name of the template, and then get to it the long way around.
  • Fifth, it's position has stopped me from placing a photo of a British Airways 747 in basic BOAC colours but with BA titles in the history section, I think it would be preferably to have photos/diagrams in the article space rather than navigational templates.

If there are no objections within the next 7 days, or if an overwhelming majority of people support the move down the page perhaps earlier, I will change the formatting of the template and move it down the page.

As a sidenote, as there are already some templates already, it might be a good idea that it be discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines whether the Lists relating to aviation template is really required in airline articles, as the airports sub-project has removed that particular template from airport articles, and I can understand their reasoning for it. --Russavia 18:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As there have been no objections I have replaced the BA template as proposed above, and have moved it to the bottom of the articles concerned. On a side note, it appears that the template doesn't exist on all of the articles in the 'series' so I hope its ok that the main BA editors add these to the templates as needed. --Russavia 14:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

British Airways plc

There seems to be some confusion as to what constitutes a parent company (not on just this article). British Airways has the legally registered name of British Airways Plc. It operates simply under the name British Airways.

From [3] you see that the British Airways 'group' consists of British Airways Plc (the airline), in addition to several subsidiary companies. British Airways group is not a legal name, simply a way of referring to British Airways Plc (the airline), plus the subsidiary companies.

If you look at [4] (PDF file) - Page 103 (of 106) of their annual report lists the major investments of British Airways Plc. None of these are British Airways (the airline) as British Airways (the airline) is in fact British Airways Plc. Page 31 (of 106) lists the major shareholders in British Airways Plc, none of these have a shareholding with voting rights large enough to be able to control BA boardroom decisions, therefore, none can be considered a parent company.

Hence, the parent company field of the infobox should be left empty. --Russavia 11:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As you are aware this is also being discussed at Template talk:Infobox Airline, I still disgree and I reckon that the parent company is British Airways PLC even if it is the same entity. As a public company it does not have parents just shareholders. Therefore by default it is its own parent! - But despite my disagreement I dont have a serious problem if you remove the entry from the parent field again. If an agreement on a new infobox gains concenus then the use of the fields would be clearer particularly if an extra field is added for legal name. MilborneOne 11:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Kids Council

I noticed that the section on kids council had been deleted, but i have looked into it and it is a legitimate fact. It might not deserve it's own sub-section but could probably be mentioned. Bthebest 12:38, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Not looked at it myself but would not appear to be notable, market research on branding and services is not that uncommon. Can any council that recommends free chocolate for children be that serious! MilborneOne 22:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit War

I feel I should start some kind of post here on the current edit war regarding information on a passenger death on board and the price fixing debacle. I resent the fact that I've been labeled as a "vandal" when I clearly stated logical reasons for removing the said information. First of all, the price fixing is discussed in a different section other than "Incidents and Accidents", and I should point out that "Incidents and accidents" is not the correct section for this kind of information on a scandal anyway. As to the passenger death, I felt this information was not notable enough to be included in the "Incidents and accidents" section, because, as the anon user stated in his/her edit, passenger deaths are fairly common in aviation and each airline experience them several times a year on average. Why note this case in particular? Simply because one passenger didn't like the fact that the dead body was kept in a seat near him/her. This does not define notability. The anon user also included in the edit that keeping the body on board "risked the lives of the other passengers". This sounds very much like blowing the incident out of proportion and doing a quick google search I cannot find any reliable, medical institution that supports this claim. Therefore this edit does not belong in the article either. NcSchu(Talk) 15:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems the anon user, who apparently has a changing IP address, is ignoring this discussion and continuing to add this improper and irrelevant information to the article. I left a message on the latest IP address's talk page, however given that the address has not stayed for more than one edit it's unlikely whether he/she will get the message. NcSchu(Talk) 02:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
NcSchu your reasoning is logical and I support your deletions. MilborneOne 10:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Logo needed

Looks like the BA logo was deleted due to lack of sourcing... Enigma3542002 19:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thx for adding it. Enigma3542002 08:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Family Guy

An IP user keeps adding a cartoon image and reference to a TV program called Family Guy. I have reverted it a few times (I have never heard of the program!) but the IP user insists it is notable. Any comments on its inclusion or not please. MilborneOne 21:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've heard of the program, but that still doesn't mean it's notable. Even though judging from the tail it was pretty obvious it was British Airways, the airline technically wasn't mentioned or shown by name, meaning that technically it wasn't British Airways on the show. So no, I don't think it should be included. NcSchu(Talk) 22:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Can I suggest that we may risk in being overly literal in insisting that a textual mention of the name is required to make a mention. The concept of Brand, as accepted in Law, does not require this - a commonly recognised "device" such as the tail logo, is still a use of Brand. I therefore would see no harm in adding a reference to a quite well known, free-to-air TV program alongside other Media mentions.Bill Martin (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
It's trivia, plain and simple-it adds nothing to the article but worthless information. NcSchu(Talk) 21:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I entirely agree it's trivia - but if that's the grounds we should expunge "Goldeneye", "Die Another Day", "Coming to America", "Parent Trap", "Three Men and a Baby" and "A Fish Called Wanda" as well for consistency. As John Heywood put it in 1546: "wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?". Bill Martin (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Fine with me, though I feel like those entries are more relevant than Family Guy because, as I said, the airline isn't referred to or shown by name, therefore most people wouldn't notice/recognize it. NcSchu(Talk) 00:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I dont have a problem with the other media entries being deleted! - although I have heard of at most of the films still not sure what family guy is other than an american cartoon programme - is it shown outside of the US? MilborneOne (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Family Guy gets a couple of episodes per week, plus repeats, on BBC Three (Freeview) - website is http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/familyguy/. So what is it to be - add Family Guy, or zap the others? Bill Martin (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Zap. NcSchu(Talk) 20:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Zap. MilborneOne (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Text removed from "Media" in accordance with above discussion:

The airline features in films and TV Shows:
  • The James Bond films Goldeneye and Die Another Day. The Bond relationship appears to have ended with 2006's Casino Royale.
  • Coming to America, in which the prince arrives in the U.S. on board a BA Concorde.
  • The 1998 remake of The Parent Trap, in which Hallie arrives in London on a BA aircraft.
  • Three Men and a Baby, in which the three men arrive at the airport and assume that the baby has been taken to England on a BA aircraft.
  • A Fish Called Wanda, when Archie and Wanda escape to Rio De Janeiro on a British Airways 747 at the end of the film after some fighting on the tarmac below the plane.

Bill Martin (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

B777 Seating

I added the following text:

In 2002, British Airways became the 1st customer to introduce a 10 abreast economy class configuration on the Boeing 777, an aircraft which had only been designed for 9 abreast, by using specially built narrow seats and narrow aisle. This was applied to 3 GE engined 777-236ER (G-VIIO / MSN 29320, G-VIIP / MSN 29321 and G-VIIR / MSN 29322) which are predominantly used on Caribbean routes, but are sometimes flown to and from Florida. Since BA piloted this development, which has earned some opprobrium from both passengers and the press, the configuration has been emulated by Emirates Airline and China Southern

This has been reverted by MilborneOne as being "interesting but dont think it is or was controvertial" I think this needs to be discussed, as:

  • The introduction of the 10-abreast was a "first" for BA -- albeit not one they should be proud of!
  • I would contend it is controversial in that it attracts adverse comment ... and actually looses them pax (at least 3 UK organisations I know won't fly their non-business entitled staff on BA to Florida and Caribbean as a result)

So I would still like this to be in "Controversies", but if not then should be in Fleet or Cabins Bill Martin (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

References would be useful, specifically, references which describe the decision to fit ten abreast seating as controversial. Nick (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The controversy hit the TV screens with BBC's Watchdog as a result of pax. complaints sometime in 2001 (I can find some indirect references to it, which imply may have been edition of 4th June 2001, but BBC only keeps this years Watchdog's reports online so can't give a URL). The suggested text above would therefore need to be amended to 2001 to be correct (sorry for the original typo), but it definitely was controversial! Bill Martin (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Just like to comment that I dont think it should be in the controversies section without evidence that it did cause a stir beyond one TV program. On another note if it was to be included elsewhere (even with a proper citation) I would still question if a seat fit on one type of aircraft over the hundreds of aircraft over sixty years is really notable. MilborneOne (talk) 12:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
It may seem a minor point, but it really is a deeply antisocial measure to take 1" of the already meagre width of Economy seating (as a one time Wing Forward, I always find shoulder room a problem!). So I definitely want this to be mentioned somewhere - if the consensus is that without the full citation to BBC then it's not provably Controversial (it certainly was in my office, but that's hearsay, of course), it should go in Fleet or Cabins. Bill Martin (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of any further dissent, have added the revised text into 'Cabins'. Bill Martin (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Have also added reverse link to this issue from the B777 page. Bill Martin (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Major incident BA038 Boeing 777 - Heathrow Airport

BBC One news pictures - it has landed short of the runway, ending up on the stripes at the start of the runway. Undercarriage has not surprisingly failed, port (left) wing detached, fuselage intact. 3 minor injuries only. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 13:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Some reports are saying the planes engines and electrical systems all failed on approach, leving the crew little option but to land short. Soarhead77 (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
IP users keep changing the 777 fleet from 40 to 39 - I presume as a result of the accident on the BA038 service as they dont appear to have sold one today! Just like to suggest that until we have a citable reference that it has been written-off (we dont know it is not repairable) then it should not be changed. As I have reverted it twice I will leave it to others to decide if it is changed again. MilborneOne (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, the damage looks bad so I can understand why users have tried to reduce the number, but we really don't know whether BA will write it off, they sure do need their 777s. NcSchu(Talk) 19:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm no expert, but I would call it a write off. However as suggested we cannot call it a write off until BA does. Mark83 (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


[User Chris Mills]Still isn't definite yet. They have certainly taken great care when moving it. and have moved it without cutting. I would argue that there are still 40 in the fleet and there is no confirmed hull loss at present.

I would agree. Until BA specifically says they have written it off, it should still count as part of the fleet. Maybe a note saying one out of service. Bthebest (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

AAIB report BA038

2 miles in the report means 2 nautical miles (3.7km), not 2 statute miles (3.2km) as the BBC keeps erroneously reporting. Mjroots (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Male Passenger "Controversy"

So, I find it ironic that an editor would remove something and then tell me to bring it to talk...especially because the editor I reverted claimed a logical edit was vandalism, right enough in itself to revert. But in any case, the reason myself and another user removed the "Male Passenger Controversy" is because it just isn't a controversy. It may have been a "controversy" for a week when it was "revealed", and I can understand why it was added at the time, but now it has hardly any importance in BA's history. The fact that the primary source used for the article is a tabloid newspaper, which by definition blows tiny incidences out of proportion, is reason enough to not include it. There's no issue here, this "controversy" just isn't important. NcSchu(Talk) 16:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree - I trimmed the entry down a few months ago as it was bloated with trivia but would agree it is not notable and support its removal. MilborneOne (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, it's a group wide, demeaning, controversial policy, it's well sourced with quotes from BA confirming the policy and from Kidscape attacking the policy. From your comments, you're failing to view things from WP:NPOV. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 17:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Not really, you're the person condemning the policy. It looks like you're looking at this with a very biased view. I think this is a non-issue. You still haven't proved it's a notable controversy, just that it's a "bad" policy in your view. I understand it's true, but I can't for the life of me see how it's important enough to be included. NcSchu(Talk) 18:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
You removed a fully sourced controversial policy from a section of the article entitled Controversies. Please explain how that complies with WP:NPOV. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Because I was looking at it as a neutral reader. I read it, it didn't sound important enough. I already explained the issue of the "source". A tabloid newspaper isn't a reliable source, especially with a "controversy". I've tried looking for other news agencies regarding the matter and have found only a couple of mentions from second-tier news outlets, all of which indicate that BA apologized about the policy. This seems to be only controversial to a few people. You seem to be personally against the policy judging from your labeling of it as "demeaning" and I'm guessing that you want it included because you think the public should know about it. That's not good enough. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the policy, as a matter of fact I happen not to care either way because it just doesn't affect me. I'm looking at this simply as a matter of notability. NcSchu(Talk) 21:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
To say this policy isn't not notable is quite frankly ridiculous. The airline clearly has an official policy assuming that all males are potential paedophiles (and women are not). What if the policy stated children couldn't sit next to blacks or gays or any other group (or even Christians wearing crosses)? Just becasue certain newspapers choose to completely ignore such blatant sex discrimination doesn't make it any less real. Additionally the story is just as important now as it was 2-3 years ago. BA to my knowledge still have the exact same policy in place and have made no real apology for practicing sex discrimination - they've only apologised for any offence caused and in the same statement continued to defend their disgraceful policy.
Why on earth was this well sourced and hugely significant controversy deleted yet the same section contains relatively insignificant issues such as very slight alterations to some film which were made merely to prevent free advertising for the company's biggest competitor? I don't condone censorship but it is prety obvious which is the more serious offence.
Here is a different newspaper source discussing the issue - it was linked from the BA wikipedia article once but (suprise suprise) someone decided to delete it - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/11/09/do0901.xml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakehandsman (talkcontribs)
It is not well sourced! One source is the Daily Mail and the other (although from a respectable paper) was written by Boris Johnson! It IS rediculous though that the Virgin censorship "controversy" is included - I totally agree it's trivia. Mark83 (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The newspaper complies with WP:Reliable source and, as such, it also complies with WP:Notability. You appear to have an overly high opinion of what is and isn't a reliable source, at odds with WP guidelines. Prove that the quotes are false. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 16:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The newspaper complies with WP:Reliable source and, as such, it also complies with WP:Notability. The Telegraph article adds weight to that. Your opinions are at odds with WP guidelines. Do you also think that the quotes in the articles are unreliable and unnotable too ? Please stop attempting to guess my motives - they are irrelevent in the face of WP policies and guidelines. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 16:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your other source is an editorial, which is still not a reliable source - it's all opinion. All companies have policies and people disagree with those policies. This one is a bit more unusual, yes, but still just part of the airline's policy. I'm sure some people can argue that not allowing smoking in airplanes is controversial, but do we mention it? No. I can't distinguish the two. NcSchu(Talk) 00:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Now you're just being silly. Smoking has been scientifically proven to cause cancer (especially in confined spaces). On top of that there is the hugely increased fire risk, and increasing fire risk in areas right next to huge quantities of combustible fuel whilst thousands of feet in the air must be one of the least controversial airline policies ever to anyone with any common sense. You're quite right to suggest many people would like to smoke on planes and might many do kick up a fuss about it, but that's because they are selfish and/or addicted to nicotine. People can choose whether or not to smoke whereas they cannot change their gender or race so freely. This again proves you are you're failing to view things from WP:NPOV. Not only is the seating policy controversial, it is a quite possibly illegal in a number of countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakehandsman (talkcontribs) 02:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
A seating policy can't be illegal, that is "silly". I really don't think you know what NPOV is, because you're much more guilty of this than I am. I have stated, I'm completely neutral to this policy. You, however, seem to be completely opposed to the seating policy and are clearly wanting to include it in the section because of your opinions regarding it. NcSchu(Talk) 02:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I dont think it our place to agree or disasgree with the policy the argument to its inclusion is about its notability and verifiability. Even if it was notable, which in my opinion it is not, it breaks NPOV in not giving the airlines view and none of the sources are from the airline industry or child protection sources. They are also not unique (refer Qantas). You have to measure it against sixty years of the airlines history not a few days in the paper. I also suspect that the cross controversy and James Bond entries could probably be removed for being non-notable now.MilborneOne (talk) 10:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Might be worth removing the James Bond stuff, but I'd say the cross story was hugely notable (though not as notable as the seating issue). Your other points are incorrect - the story does contain BA's point of view though a fuller statement would be better. I've done some research and this is actually a long term on-going issue, covered by other newspapers such as the Times (more than once) right back in 2001! (hardly a few days). Additionally the Times article has a more in depth quote from BA and discusses the policies of rival airlines: http://www.fact.on.ca/news/news0103/ti010316.htm We will still need to cite the Daily mail article as that is the only one covering the view from Kidscape. --Shakehandsman (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps if the seating problem had an article on its own (like the cross issue) and could stand up for scrutiny for verifiability and notability, it could cover other airlines as well. Then all we would need is a one sentence link to that article.MilborneOne (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree with the removal of the James Bond story, that's less notable than the seating issue. I don't know, I'm even less inclined to agree with a full article regarding the seating issue. I think, if we absolutely have to keep it, we need a better source than the daily mail, please, for god's sake let's use a reputable news outlet for sourcing. NcSchu(Talk) 16:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I still think it is not notable, but if it could stand up as an article on its own right it would prove a wider acceptance of notability and test verifiability. MilborneOne (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
True. Are there any references that indicate this is a common policy on other airlines? If so, I could then see a more thorough article dealing with the policy in general. That actually, in my opinion, would become a very interesting article if it was written well and had enough sources. The only foreseeable problem that I can think of is controlling the biases. Even the snippet that we're arguing about on the BA article sounds like bashing, not a neutral commentary. NcSchu(Talk) 19:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've corrected the date to March 2001 and added the link to the Times article on this issue. --Shakehandsman (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This is definitely relevant, verifiable, and deserving of inclusion. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Linkspam - Feb 2008

I, along with other editors, have reverted User:213.123.183.232 several times for adding inappropriate NPOV links on this page, and I have added warnings to his/her talk page but the user persists. I've reverted it twice today already and don't want to do it again as I'll be violating the 3RR, so I'd appreciate it if other editors could address the situation. Thanks. NcSchu(Talk) 19:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

A bit tiresome can we get the page protected from IP changes? MilborneOne (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah now there are multiple IP addresses, this is getting a bit excessive. They've certainly been redundantly warned. NcSchu(Talk) 23:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
This is getting silly, can we get the IP blocked / page protected from IP edits for a few days? SempreVolando (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I put the site on the spam blacklist. That should close things down. Stifle (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Too Many Pictures

Is it just me, or do others believe that too many pictures are being used in this article. While I love having pictures displayed appropriately throughout the article, I do not like an "overkill" use. I think the fleet section should have no pictures that would intrude upon the table, as it makes the table very small and difficult to display words in the table. Also, I believe descriptions for thumbnails should be shortened.--Golich17 (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There really aren't that many...the History section has none and a few other places only have a couple, so I think it just need sorting. NcSchu(Talk) 03:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Dont think thery are two many, but as User:NcSchu says perhaps they need moving about. Remember that different readers will see the images and table layouts differently depending on screen resolution and preset image sizes. MilborneOne (talk) 12:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Models section - they should be placed in the table, historic models should be added although I appreciate that the WP rules make this all but impossible. The ethnic tailfin picture should be removed as it's poor - that goes for any pic. There are not enough pics in the other sections. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 09:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
What I am missing in this article are older images of how BA planes used to look like. Maybe one image for each era is enough, but this could be added to the history or livery section. Gryffindor 08:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with all of you. Moving pictures around may be a good idea, so I think I might figure out a way how to move the majority of the photos into different sections while trying not to remove them. However, if more than one aircraft in a certain aircraft family are displayed, the amount of pictures for that aircraft family should be reduced to one photo.--Golich17 (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to leave a response to this section's matter of interest. Images have been heavily rearranged; old aircraft images can be seen by the bucketload in the new History sub-article that has been formed, which I've used to end the over-imaging of this one. This does leave this article with a havily leaning towards the modern liveries and aircraft, but I'm thinking that this is necessary in order to keep the numbers to a sensible level, not to mention them having good representation elsewhere now. Hope this solution suits the curious and concerned! Kyteto (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ryanair

the first line states that ba is soon to be aquired by ryanair, this is rubbish and i can't find the reference in the edit page. someone please delete this dirty trick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.159.120 (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken, that was in a vandalism edit but it was reverted some time ago. You might need to delete your web browser's cache to see the current page. NcSchu(Talk) 18:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Refs & reflist

I've restored a reference that was deleted elsewhere, causing an error in the reflist. If you are deleting text including a full reference, please check whether or not that ref is used elsewhere, and move the full reference in necessary. I've also changed the reflist to a scrollable one. Mjroots (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

BA museum

I can't really tell, is the British Airways Archive and Museum Collection mentioned in this article at all? If not, this should definetly be put in with a small paragraph, it's really worth it. Gryffindor 08:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Nigerian incident

Is it worth mentioning the incident on flight BA75 to Lagos on 27th March where a number of passengers were removed from a flight? It is sparked some considerable controversy among Nigerians -- here's a cached Yahoo News article I came upon as well as the website pressing for the boycott. Cheers! --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 23:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't think it classifies as being notable, but then again I don't think some of the other ones on here do either. NcSchu(Talk) 02:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree does not appear to be notable. MilborneOne (talk) 11:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it actually a BA subsidiary that runs the 737 ops in Africa? NcSchu(Talk) 13:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Boeing 747 at Terminal 4 image

I have just removed a new image added to the page. It is of a 747 at terminal four taken through a window (including reflections of building lights). If it was an unusual or rare subject it would be acceptable but we already have good images of BA 747s and I dont think it adds any value to the article. The photograph was taken by User:Chugga who has reverted my removal. Dont want to remove it again without gaining opinions from other editors, particularly interested if anybody thinks it adds any value. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Resemblance to budget airlines

Somebody removed this paragraph:

Traditionally viewed as a full fare airline, BA operations in some ways resemble those of a budget airline; notably in the February 2007 decision to charge up to £240 for a second piece of hold luggage.<ref> {{cite news | title = BA to charge £240 for extra bag | publisher = [[BBC News]]| date = [[8 February]] [[2007]] | url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6309471.stm | accessdate = 2007-02-26 }}</ref>

It certainly has the wrong URL (correct link: [5]). At first glance, it also looks like OR. The article referred to seems to support the paragraph, however:

Independent air transport consultant John Strickland told the BBC he was surprised by the move.

"In some ways, they are taking a leaf out of a low-cost airline's book by charging," he said.

"They are seen as a full service airline and certainly not as a low-cost carrier."

Brian Jason Drake 08:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Barra

nothing mentioned about the ba flight to barra from glasgow, and the flight from barra to benbecualr, both of which land on the beach. that plane isnt in the fleet bit either its a twin otter thingy. litte tiny plane. look here - http://www.hial.co.uk/barra-airport.html --81.109.246.242 (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

See Loganair, who operate the route. SempreVolando (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

history

This article would benefit from more history (eg when did BA introduce business class?). Deipnosophista (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

table position

hey, can somebody try to get the table back in line with the pics cos it look terrible with all that empty space. i've tried myself but nothing seems to work. (i'm not a great editor)Bthebest (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure which table you are looking at but the page looks OK, remember not everybody sees the same page as it depends on individual browser settings and screen resolution, small screens will show less empty space then a user with a large screen resolution. Normally messing about makes it worse for somebody else. So unless it is a real problem best left alone. MilborneOne (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
talking about the fleet table but understand your point on browser settings etc. don't worry any changes i made were either sandboxed or undone. Bthebest (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

British Airways DH89A

Did BA operate a Dragon Rapide? There is a photo in "Aircraft Illustrated Annual 1985" of G-AKOE in British Airways livery. Mjroots (talk) 09:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really G-AKOE was painted in British Airways colours to publicise the new Shuttle flights between Heathrow and Manchester in 1979. MilborneOne (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Good job I didn't add it to the article then! Mjroots (talk) 11:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Unaccompanied children

"In March 2001, it was revealed that British Airways has a policy of not seating adult male passengers next to unaccompanied children, even if the child's parents are elsewhere on the plane."

Can't be, because in the latter case the children are acommpanied! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.136.225.11 (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying; I think it's referring to children sitting by themselves. I will change the wording to make it clearer. Next time, please don't insert commentary into the article. NcSchu(Talk) 18:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

largest airline

I have removed the addition of information that easyjet is the UK largest airline to the lead sentence a number of times but the IP editor keeps adding it back. The lead does not declare that BA is the UK largest airline (just that it is one of the largest airlines in Europe). This is not really relevant to the lead sentence about British Airways. Although a mention in one of the other sections that easyjet carries more international passengers may be appropriate (note this is only one factor used to measure the size of an airline (World's largest airlines). Please note that the fact easyjet claims to be the UK largest airline is not mentioned in the airlines article or has any attempt been made to add it there. Comments welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi MilborneOne,

I think the edit you made today represented the information perfectly... about BA having the largest British fleet but being number 2 in terms of passengers carried.

I think that many people (including the press) traditionally and wrongly assume that British Airways carry the most passengers of any UK airline which is now not the case, despite having the largest fleet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.156.233 (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we have now have a more balanced and neutral set of words in the lead. MilborneOne (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidents / Dirty Tricks Campaigns - John Gorman and his battle with BA

This is an important part of BA customer service history and occurred right around the time of the Virgin saga. Something should be here about it, especially as you have other similar items. For those who don't recall it was all about whether the frequent flyer, John Gorman, did or did not find a piece of glass in his in-flight drink and the possible ensuing "dirty tricks" against him such as harassing phone calls later traced back to BA offices.

Anybody literate enough to write up something about it?

A Taxed Mind (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Did it ever go to court, the reference I can find Gorman did not turn up to the court hearing. We would need to find a reliable source that all his allegations were proven as we cant really just repeat one side of the story. So if somebody can find a court report it can then be looked at for notability. MilborneOne (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

New First

Have just seen on Company intranet that the new First seat will be rolled out in September, with a new washbag, mattress, duvet and a re-jig of the meal service being rolled out in the mean time. There has also been a mass re-training of cabin crew in the areas of premium service, now I know this is being done for a different reason, but this is partly being done for the arrival of the new seat. Obviously I can't source it because it's on a password and restricted section, there were sketches of the new first cabin on one version of the investor day powerpoint, for some peculiar reason there are versions without so that will give an idea of what is happening. Also a minor point, whilst the seat design is from 1996 it did receive a fairly major facelift in the early 2000/1/2 I can't remember which should be mentioned as it altered the seat material, cabin appearance and amenities provided. So if someone wants to have a re-jig with that section then they are more than welcome, if not I will do it at some point. Benny45boy (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Incident at Jersey

I've removed detail about an incident during landing at Jersey. The item cited Emergency at Jersey airport, which gives little information, and I can find no other reference that isn't simply a copy. In particular, there appears to be nothing about this incident in the AAIB bulletins for the rest of that year, or the two years following.

Aircraft have issues all the time. If every trivial incident made it into the list, the latter would be so long as to be unusable.

--Sylvia (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Incident at Phoenix

Is this incident worthy of inclusion in the "Accidents and incidents" section of the article? Probably not notable enough to have its own article but could be notable enough for inclusion under aircraft, airline and location articles. Mjroots (talk) 07:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it requires its own article as you have already stated but it would be good to have the flight mentioned under Accidents and Incidents. It was flight 288 wasn't it? --Plane Person (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Doesnt appear to be that notable just a precautionary evacuation due to smoke in the cabin. I would at least wait to see if it was anything unusual before adding it. MilborneOne (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Passenger Figure Disagreement

In the first section of the article, it states "Rival United Kingdom carrier EasyJet carried 44.5 million passengers in the same year, taking the title from British Airways." However, these figures disagree with both the BA passenger figures further down the page (33,117,000) and the easyJet page figures (43,700,000). I was just wondering who knows what the figures actually were and then if you could change both the BA and the easyJet page in the affected area. Thanks, --Plane Person (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC).

Boeing aircraft sentence

To me, the following sentence reads too much as if BA do not have a mainly Boeing fleet anymore which is not true:

For a number of years the airline had a large Boeing fleet, but in November 1998 it placed its first order for Airbus aircraft with the purchase of 90 A320 Family aircraft.

I have written a new version and just want to hear your views on the matter:

Despite being a primarily Boeing customer, in November 1998 British Airways placed a major order for Airbus aircraft with the purchase of 90 A320 Family aircraft.

Thanks, --Plane Person (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

My problem was with the previous wording which perputuated the myth that BA had an all Boeing fleet, I dont have a problem with your rewrite. MilborneOne (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Destination Diagram

The diagram in the destination section incorrectly omits Nigeria and Ghana. I don't know how to edit this diagram, does anyone else? There may also be other countries which haven't been included as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.46.252 (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

References

We really need a reference on the section for 757 operations in Terminal 5. I don't know who is right so it is difficult to keep the article accurate. Can someone please find a reference for it. Thanks, --Plane Person (talk) 10:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC).

I'd be in favour of deleting the 757 sentence. It isn't a specific that is really necessary in this article's overview; it can be dispensed with and nothing important would be lost. Kyteto (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

References - Urgent attention needed

I'm not sure why, but this article has been put in for a Good Article Review. This isn't necessarily a strange action, but there is little point in expecting anything but an automatic fail considering the vast formatting programs with the references. Some are completely dead, a few are misplaced in regard to puncuation, but most bizarrely for a review of quality, more than two dozen (that's around 24 for those who don't know what a dozen is) are nothing but URLs. References should have an URL (if it is from the web), a title (usually the one provided by the source), a publisher (what organisation made it), and a date (either the date accessed, but if available use the date it was published) minimum. The Cite Web template is highly recommended. If possible, include the author, this tends to be approved of greatly. I hope to see signs of other people taking it upon themselves to do this, I've already been taking a fair whack at it and will continue to do so. Kyteto (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Although it took me hours, I've gone and done most of the reference work. Do try to keep on top of it, don't get so sloppy as to use raw urls in references, especially if this is going for GA. Sorry to sound negative, but it is practically an auto-fail to the extent that it was. Kyteto (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Well the GA auto-failed anyway. Adding more references and citations to statements, claims, and 'facts' should be the top priority of any editors interested in improving this page, I'd expect at least 150+ for an article of this size. Kyteto (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I've brought the article up to 150 references, found about 35 for pre-existing statements on my own in just the last three days, but this is still not enough as we have many citation tags remaining. Not sure if anybody really cares about taking this article up to GA level, I could use some support trying to find these references. If anybody does chip in with collecting and charting more refs, it would be very much appreciated. Kyteto (talk) 23:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Route Changes table

What do other editors think of the need for the Route Changes table in this article? This seems to me to be unnecessary, Wikipedia is not a travel guide and this section is not designed to list routes anyway, only destinations which are listed in a separate article with begin and end dates for new / ending destinations as appropriate and in line with WP:AIRLINES. There is also some text after the aforementioned table which seems only to discuss route changes; I don't think this is what Wikipedia is for. This was recently raised the in GA review for the article, which asked "Is it necessary to include a table of route changes?" I would propose removing this table and text. SempreVolando (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I am in agreement, it is not encyclopedic material for inclusion. Wikipedia is suppose to be an extended definition and collection of information across the range of the important events and feautes of that definition; it is not supposed to be a current events bulletin board with up-to-date irregularity warnings. Leave it for the more specific British Airways destinations articles, but it doesn't really belong within the wiki anyway. I'm in strong favour of having it ditched. Kyteto (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Concur. At most one line saying a few new destinations will be introduced later this year such as Vegas, Male, Sharm etc and details in the main British Airways destinations article.
By the way, I just came across something similar over in the Delta article. Not a table, but worse! Jasepl (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Also concur with all the above. A simple addition of the new destination in its respective destination article with a referenced start date will do fine. But Wikipedia is not a place to post or maintain timetable changes. --[[::User:Sb617|Sb617]] ([[::User talk:Sb617|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sb617|contribs]]) 15:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Concur with the above comments. Wikipedia isn't a travel guide. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 Done Thanks for your input. There seems to be broad consensus here, so I have removed the table and the associated text, none of which I could consider to be 'encyclopedic'. The section looks a little bare now so another paragraph or two might not go amiss but I'll leave that for other editors to contribute. SempreVolando (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Lounges section

I'm considering deleting the tables and Heathrow subsection under the Lounges heading of the main article. It has no citations, and doesn't appear to be particularly relevant or useful in its current state. All it is used for as it stands is a list of current lounges the airline uses, which isn't really the sort of information we need to be charting in an encyclopedia format that wikipedia is based upon; it lacks any historical depth or significant defining value apart from the few paragraphs of prose, which I plan to keep and kitbash into something smaller and properly cited. Opinions and alternatives are welcome, as I would not want to remove something without first hearing any cases for being there, or without some sort of consensus on the action. Kyteto (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Cant see any tables or a heathrow subsection under Lounges - have they been deleted already. Nevermind it is all a bit NOTTRAVEL and should probably be removed. If anybody has any historical information on lounges since 1974 that may be a bit more encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, sadly I just took them out about half an hour before your comment. I've written the section in the current style and added two references, but there is no historical perspective I've been able to gather together on my searches. But at least it isn't a collection of information in an inappropriate content anymore. Thank you for the input though. Kyteto (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

History section

In the process of my expansion of the article, the history section had undergone massive growth, right now it consumes about 100 references on its own! I've spun off a new article, Modern history of British Airways in order to accomidate that expansion better, eventually I hope to start trimming away at this article's history section, now that valuable content won't be lost. I just have to study the section and choose carefully which historical sections to edit out on this main article. Kyteto (talk) 12:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem with a sub-article but any particular reason why Modern history and not just History of British Airways or do we intend to have an Early history of British Airways. Also note it needs a Template:Copied on both this and the new article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I felt that the History subsection on the British Airways template was complicated and messy, particularly with entries like the little known British Airways Ltd, I wanted to make it clear that we were dealing with the latter day, modern variant of the airline, and not the various jumble of past fragments that either vanished or merged to become to the current day aviation giant. Basically the template's history section is a complete mess of various stubby articles covering the early era, and those haven't been embraced into the new history section. I'll stick those Templates in now though. To be honest, it is my first time creating a subarticle on this scale, and the help of others is heavily welcome. Kyteto (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
OK still think it should be History of British Airways as it looks like some of the early history by definition of modern is missing. It implies it may be the history only in for example the 21st century and not since 1974. Any previous airlines have their own article and are unlikely to be confused. MilborneOne (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Understood, I just think it'll be very confusing to have British Airways Ltd and History of British Airways in the same subsection of the same template box, couldn't we have the former changed to British Airways Ltd (defunct), else people may mistake it for the history article for the modern day company rather than some titchy no-name with the same name from a bygone era, or worse they might mistake it for the history of that said no-name. To be honest, that little stub is a minor headache that I suppose could be overlooked. I'll support the name change then, though I would have preferred the word Modern to be in the title somewhere to prevent it getting mixed up with the historical, similar entities, I know it muddles me up when I've een trying to dive through them while pulling this article's boots up.
Oh, and the other solution is for me to simply write up the Early History article, which would take me a little bit more time as it wouldn't be a straight port from one article but several plus some interlinking writing, and there'd be less refs to go around. If that is preferable, I could use a hand constructing the Early history of British Airways. I have some ideas on what to put in it though; along the lines of the pre-nationalised entities and the nationalised company.Kyteto (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that the the History of British Airways should only start in 1974 and not try and document predecessor companies which all have their own articles. If you are to use modern then you really need to define when it starts like 1990 or 2000. I presume it is the British Airways nav box that confuses then I would suggest that the predecessor companies are moved out of the 'History' section to avoid confusion. I have changed Template:British Airways see what you think. MilborneOne (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Aye, in my opinion that has fixed the issue. I'll see if I can get the history article renamed; might as well now that the template is making sense to people looking for things. Thanks for the input, it is good to know somebody is there and caring about this article chain. Kyteto (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
We need to summarise the history in this main article and remove most of the detail, I will have a go later if nobody else does it first. MilborneOne (talk)
Been ditching a few chunks so far. Still going. Kyteto (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2009(UTC)
Gone from what was roughly 110 refs to about 55, just to show the level of thinning out so far. I hope the other editors read this talk page soon and realise not to full them back up on this main article, and instead use the proper subarticle. Kyteto (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Fleet Gallery section

There have been multiple complains, for several months, that there are too many images at portions of this article. The most obvious example of this is the Current Fleet subsection of the article, where the number of pictures is so excessive there is a massive whitespace at the bottom of section, on certain resolutions. However attempts to trim the amount of images keep getting reverted-without discussion. I understand that they are liked, but the current clumsy formatting can't be the best way to do this, especially in light of the number of complaints. I suggest that we construct an fleet image gallery section, I'll see if I can dig up the code from another implimentation elsewhere, if it gains popularity and support that is. We can't simply keep reverting it under the excuse "That's the way its always been", as the current solution has not been acceptable to neither article reviewers or ordinary readers, as can be seen on this very talk page. So, thoughts? Kyteto (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there has been an issue with the representative fleet images occupying the space to the right of the infobox, and spreading out below (note - this happens in Internet Explorer, but not in Mozilla Firefox). A gallery can be considered, but that adds another section to this already long article, when GA-class airline articles and above rarely have these sections. If the goal is to have representative photos of each major jet type operated by BA, then the photos could be rearranged so as not to create the formatting, whitespace errors. I've given it a shot--removing 2 photos (a 757 and 767), which are already represented by the special liveries examples (also a 757 and 767). The A320 family and 777 photos are now by the future fleet section, where they are discussed, and the 737 and 747 photos are moved up where they face the center of the article. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The photos have been rearranged, putting them next to the fleet box by AniRaptor2001; however in a <verticalimage> format. The layout has been kept, just the redundant photos removed (the 747-400 photo is in the history section; the 737 photo in the fleet section replaces the one in history; and there is a 767 photo in the tail fins discussion). As mentioned above, this is both for redundancy, and because the long fleet pictures section extends past the fleet infobox and causes a white space in certain Internet Explorer resolutions. SynergyStar (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

British airways becoming an online business.

This my seem a bit odd of someone to ask... but does anyone actually know when BA became an online business? with a business turn over roughly 8 billion gross a year i thought someone would have included one of the most important things to them making such a huge profit. The internet is one of the biggest factors, scratch that, THE bigegst factor in BA making so much profit.. can anyone provide me an anwser to this question? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.60.99 (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Fleet Table Colour

Is it me or is the current fleet table colour dreaful? Blue and White are a good mix but in this circumstance I change me mind! I mean, blue represents 'BA' fair enough, but it just all blodgy and if anything, with 'Options' being linked it is hard to read in that colour. I propose;

What do you guys think? Regards, Zaps93 (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The color has been the Oneworld type for a over a year before it was recently changed to blue, I have since changed it back to the Oneworld color style, which is #9592C6. SynergyStar (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I was confused and disgusted by the 'blue' colour. Zaps93 (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

More than flying tin boxes?

Having noted the recent cabin crew dispute, and relating press coverage, I noted the defining notability of the British Airlines Stewards and Stewardesses Association. In researching the article, its pretty obvious that BA and its staff have a long line of poor industrial nations, spanning many years over many functions: pilots, cabin crew, ground handlers and the meals team. Coming to this article late last night, its also pretty obvious that the focus of the article at present is highly dedicated to the flying tin boxes: the history of the airline is horribly short, while every nook and cranny of the latest fleet addition is explored. There is only presently one mention of the word "staff" in the entire article, so the article misses the problem in industrial relations. I hence placed a short line in mentioning the roles of both BALPA and BASSA, but apparently according to MilborneOne, a union that is dedicated to BA cabin crew and the largest branch of the TGWU is not notable - lots more unions involved that are not notable either - personally, that seems too close to breaching WP:AGF. Is this article just about pushing tin around the skies, or is it about the company that consists of more than that? If so, it would seem desperately to need some expansion in those areas. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to add reliably sourced information on industrial relations although I suspect it should really be in History of British Airways. Adding just the two groups for the pilots and cabin crew doesnt really add much to the article hence the not notable comment. I suspect that other unions are also recognised by BA and as a matter of balance they should all be mentioned, I dont think the engineers and ground staff are represented by these two. So a balanced statement on how BA handles industial relations is possible in this article but a properly sourced history of industrial relation would be a good addition to the History of British Airways article. A straight list of unions would still not be notable to the airline. MilborneOne (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I must disagree with the assertion that "the history of the airline is horribly short", if you hadn't noticed it had became so big in previous page revisions that it was spun off into an article in its own right. There's even a "Main Article:is here" tag placed on the History section here, so I have no idea how you manage to overlook that! Right now, the History of British Airways is actually bigger in terms of references used and overall filesize than the British Airways article itself, as there is so much history that has been covered. Please try looking for Main Article shootoffs, as they are frequently used on the bigger articles with topics in such depth they can only be fairly covered by being discussed on thier own in the wider detail. There is quite a few mentions of staff unhappiness and union threats over the years if you look closely, you'll have to sit down for a good half hour or so to read it all likely but it hasn't been overlooked. You can feel free to add to it, though do keep it in proportion with the bulk dedicated to other articles of interest that have already been written about. Kyteto (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Industrial Relations

Looking at the Industrial Relations section, it seems a bit thin. "Staff directly employed by British Airways have not gone on strike since 1997. Relations have been turbulent between BA and Unite, particularly in 2009 with regard to proposed changes to working conditions for cabin crew." Turbulent. Yes, I seem to remember that BA's caterers Gate Gormet went on strike prompting a wildcat strike at BA, their Baggage Handlers and ground crew have all been involved in some sort of action over the past few years and there have been a number of strike ballots. While the article statement may be factually correct, it glosses over a very difficult period for the airline by including the qualifier Directly employed. Do people think this article goes far enough to address BA's industrial relations? 87.74.14.212 (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that more needs to be added about the relations. The airlines passenger numbers are falling and there have been reports (I don't have time to find and edit this myself) that threats of industrial action is affecting the public's perception of them, further deepening their problems. The article also now needs updating about the planned strike announced today. KlickingKarl (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Source

This webpage and those linked in the navbox on it contain a lot of useful info about the history of BA and its predecessors. This includes introduction of aircraft types into service and retirement from service, commencement and ceasing of services to various locations. Mjroots (talk) 09:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Flight 5309 incident

It appears that one editor feels that the summary of the above incident should refer to the pilot being 'blown out' of the aircraft whereas another editor and all of the sources I could find report that the pilot was 'sucked out' of the windscreen. Personally I feel the original (i.e. 'sucked') was better as this, to me, described what happened better than 'blown' because if you read 'blown' you expect that some sort of force pushed the pilot out of the window from inside the aircraft. At any rate the sources say 'sucked' and that alone is enough reason to change back to the original wording. Any objections? raseaCtalk to me 13:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. In any case, the editor's contention that "sucked" only refers to a full vacuum doesn't seem to be borne out by English usage - drink straws and hand pumps "suck" things by way of a partial vacuum. Gavia immer (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes, I missed that edit summary. If that's the only basis these changes are being made on then I'm going to go ahead and change it now because that is certainly incorrect. raseaCtalk to me 15:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I notice another edit/revert has taken place. Zippyandgeorge, we have a saying on Wikipedia - Verifiability beats truth. There may be a compromise here where "sucked" is kept in the text, and an explanatory note is added explaining why this should correctly say "blown". This is subject to consensus for its inclusion being reached, otherwise we should stick to what the sources quoted state. Mjroots (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Zippyandgeorge has been told about this discussion. I think the general consensus (because it's in line with policy more than anything else) is that 'sucked' is correct. raseaCtalk to me 13:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"Sucked" and "blown" are different terms for the same phenomenon; there is a pressure differential which causes an air movement which drags any objects in its path. Pressure differential is a relative, not an absolute term; one of the sides does not need to be a vacuum. If one side is at 0.5 atmospheres, and the other at 0.3, this is a difference of 0.2 atm, and the same force will act if one side is at 0.2 atm and the other is a perfect vacuum.
Whether "sucked" or "blown" is used in the article depends upon the references cited (see WP:V). Which one is used in the sources depends upon the viewpoint of the observer. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with this description of both the physics and the language, as I more or less stated above. We should use whatever term is in the sources. Gavia immer (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The source says "sucked", in keeping with the way people usually talk about these sorts of incidents. But now that User:Zippyandgeorge is no longer with us, this discussion is probably resolved anyway... Bobby Tables (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

747-400's at Gatwick

I was reading the article yesterday when I saw in the fleet table that 9 747-400's have now been based at Gatwick. I have looked around to try and find out if this is true but I cannot find anything. Can anyone find something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by James094 (talkcontribs) 13:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Fleet Change

Someone, and I've trawled through the history and I can't find who, has ruined the fleet section. The numbers of the aircraft in the fleet are different, apparently there are no aircraft being stored, the number of seats on board is totally wrong and the "TBA" remarks on the 787-8 and 777-300ER with regard to number of seats is also wrong. I don't know where I can find the information to correct all of this but I'm hoping someone else can or perhaps revert the edit which has caused all these problems. This needs to be fixed if the article is to become a Good Article.

Many thanks, --Plane Person (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Stored aircraft are not particularly encyclopedic and difficult to reliable source outside of the enthusiast/amateur websites. You can try http://www.britishairways.com/travel/seatpl/public/en_gb for seat layouts. MilborneOne (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The Boeing 757 has been removed even though they are still on the timetable on the BA website - who removed them??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.240.7 (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I added most of the 757 text back to the tables. According this web page (ref. 60 now), BA has 4 757s in use now. Soneone familar with this stuff should check the tables and add any missing info. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I have updated the table to agree with the used official CAA reference, this shows 12 757s registered. MilborneOne (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Revenue?

I've noticed before on wikipedia that it said BA revenue was down 8.9 billion, then someone changed it so it was going up 8.9 billion. I doubt BA revenue is going up and even if it was it wouldn't be going up by that much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt7272727272 (talkcontribs) 19:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The down symbol only means that revenue is down compared to the previous fiscal year, not by how much it has dropped. I've now fixed this problem with the correct figures and a reference. - Plane Person (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC).

Boeing 777-300ER delivery

Can people please stop listing the 777-300ER as having one in service until it is listed in the CAA Register (i.e, the reference to the entire fleet table). I'm trying to get the page to A-Class so the information has to be verifiable. If anyone has another source which is equally reputable then by all means list it as being in service but until somebody does, I can't verify it and therefore I have to keep reverting the edits which has now happened several times. Thanks, Plane Person (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC).

Yeah I agree British Airways isn't due to get its first 777-300ER until late next month —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt7272727272 (talkcontribs) 16:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the reason everyone thinks the BA 777-300er has arrived is because videos of the aircraft flying and taxing have been posted on the interent, these videos however are of flight tests by boeing and the aircraft is still at Plaine field, Washington. The tail number of the new 777-300ER is G-STBA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt7272727272 (talkcontribs) 14:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please explain...

...what the fuck However, this was stopped when British Airways sold their sub company, BA Connect, in common with operations from other UK airports, which are now served only as spokes from the London hubs means?! raseaCtalk to me 14:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It means that London acts as the hub for BA and to get access to all the hub routes, a passenger travels on a spoke (i.e, the Hub-and-spoke system). Hope this helps, Plane Person (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC).
I understand that part, but either I'm getting dumber or the writing is quite poor. '...in common with operations from other UK airports' literally makes no sense; in common with what? To what is it referring, Connect, BA, competitors?
I think it should read something more along the lines of: 'Hub operations at Manchester, and international services from outside London, ceased after the airline sold their subsidary, BA Connect, citing lack of profitability. Passengers wishing to travel internationally with BA either to or from other UK destinations must now transfer in London.'
Is that anything like what the original editor was trying to say? Because that makes sense to me (and presumably others), whereas the current revision does not. Also, the 'Fortress Heathrow' reference should be removed, there's no source (a passing reference in a Commons transcript does not suggest the term is 'common' either inside or outside the company). raseaCtalk to me 17:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, didn't realise that the sentence was confusing so I'll get right on fixing it. Thanks, Plane Person (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC).

I don't mind having a stab at it, I just wanted to make sure there was no objection (particularly from you, given the good work you're doing here!) raseaCtalk to me 17:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
It does read better now but i think the Although the National Carrier of the United Kingdom, British Airways no longer operates flights to or from Wales and Northern Ireland and services to all airports 'north of Watford Gap' were truncated in March 2007. can be removed it puts a pov bias on the section and doesnt make sense, and the reference is from a political party spokesman who was talking about Air Wales. British Airways is not really the national carrier it is a commercial airline which made appropriate decisions to be an international airline with a hub and spoke model based on the London region which is already explained. It is not forced to operate domestic services for the fun of it. So as the points have been made in the article already I think it can be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Airbus A380 delivery

Under future aircraft there is a picture of an Airbus A380, the caption goes along the lines of it will come into service in 2013. However on the current fleet table under A380 it says TBA. So will it arrive in 2013 or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.10.85 (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The TBA in the fleet table is in the column about seating, which is not yet known. MilborneOne (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, my bad. Don't know what I was thinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt7272727272 (talkcontribs) 14:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Promotion to A-Class

WikiProject Aviation promoted this article to A-Class (assessment). I propose that other editors chip in here to support or oppose promotion in the other wikiprojects. Promotion may influence inclusion in Wikipedia Version 1.0, but otherwise is a milestone in improving article quality towards Featured Article, and a deserved promotion may help motivate your wikiproject. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 06:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

As we had no objections here, and the Aviation project's formal assessment included the assent of two uninvolved editors, I am going ahead to promote to A-class for all the wikiprojects. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
But many other projects do not support the use of A-Class. Instead of forcing it upon them, each project needs to make its own decision at their talk pages with their members. Unilateral actions such as this should not be done. The only projects which explicitly use A-Class are Aviation, Ships, MILHIST, Biography, and WP:USRD. -MBK004 20:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Why do you think I forced it on anyone?
  1. I posted it here for a week for discussion.
  2. I checked with each WikiProject's assessment department page, and all of them use the standard A-class criteria from Wikipedia Version 1.0. (In addition, Aviation offers a formal assessment, but the others ask for a consensus on the article talk page.)
Why is the promotion undeserved? Please consider reverting your demotion.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to put my views into the mix but I contacted all the other WikiProjects about this matter straight after the page reached A-Class standard and have not had any response. Since the quality scales say that it can be promoted to A-Class if it is thought to be by another WikiProject (at least that’s how I read it, others might read it differently) I also think that it should be given A-Class standard by all WikiProjects and the symbol on the page changed from GA-Class to A-Class. Hope this helps, Plane Person (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC).
As a WikiProject Companies contributor, I second that. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If other WPs only require a talk page consensus for promotion then I think we have got that and I'm going to change all to A-Class. If anyone has any objections then can you point out which part of the article is not A-Class and I'll work on that. Thanks, Plane Person.

  • A few hours ago, an editor demoted the article to GA class for the London and London Transport wikiprojects. I don't understand the comment "undo importance change for WP:LT. This project does not use A-class" as that project's assessment page lists the standard criteria for A class. The same user also demoted other WikiProject London articles with the comment "This project has not assessed it as A-class". Yet it was assessed right here on behalf of all the wikiprojects using the standard formula: "For WikiProjects without a formal A-Class review process, the proposal to promote to A-Class should be made on the article's talk page and supported there by two uninvolved editors, with no significant opposes."
  • I won't restore the A classes again, but I hope someone else will, as no-one has disputed the assessment in six weeks. There is no rush: the article already scores 1763, which is enough for inclusion in Wikipedia Release 0.8. Your fellow editors only try to help wikiprojects. What is the reason for distrusting their assessments?
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I changed the status for WP:LT and WP:LONDON.
  • As MBK commented above, not all projects use A-class. WP:LT is one of those that does not, so, as far as we are concerned, this is a GA-class article.
  • Whilst the default Wikiproject grading scale appears on the assessment guidance page, you will see that the Quality scale explanation beneath it here indicates that A class is not used. There is nothing incorrect with having an article rated differently by different projects and if the Aviation wants to give it an A rating against its own set of criteria that's fine. WP:LONDON, of which I am also a member, does not have A class criteria, so I changed it back to GA for that project as well. I'm not involved in the others so I left them as they are.
  • Where, by the way, did you contact the WP:LT project about the proposed A class status? I cannot find this.
--DavidCane (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for clarifying WP:LT's processes. Duplicate headings and redundancy on that page confused me, I am afraid. You are quite right to emphasize that wikiprojects can and do set their own assessment criteria (other than GA/FA/FL).
  • (By the way, I don't think WP:LT was contacted other than in this thread)
  • WP:LONDON adopts the Wikipedia Version 1.0 quality criteria which includes the A class assessment by two uninvolved contributors (see Wikipedia:WikiProject London/Assessment#Quality scale ) Therefore I don't understand if your objection is procedural or substantive. As an occasional contributor to WikiProject London, I am delighted to get this A class article (for free), as I was delighted for WikiProject Companies. You have kicked this article and a few others out of WP:LONDON's A class on reasoning that seems to me to be mistaken. I hope that the A class status will attract expert WP:LONDON users to come here and develop British Airways towards Featured Article quality.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Labour government nationalisation policy

I find this sentence in the lead confusing:

The British Airways Group was formed on 1 September 1974 through nationalisation by the Labour Government of the time.

However 1974 seems to be a consolidation rather than a nationalisation, as the components were nationalised by Labour in 1946, and the combined British Airways Board was formed by Parliament under the Conservative Government in 1971, in response to the 1969 Edwards Report (although Edwards wanted a consolidated board with separate business operations.)

Meanwhile, the article David Nicolson suggests (indirectly) that the board was directed to merge BOAC and BEA by the Conservative government.

The body of the article makes no mention of government involvement in 1974: normally we should use lead sections to summarise the main body.

Could someone with access to the sources try to provide more clarity here (and at History of British Airways which says the same thing)? (I imagine cabinet papers from the time are available under the thirty year rule, so I imagine one or two books or articles have been written.)

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I corrected a major error the British Airways Group was formed on 1 September 1972 not 1974! MilborneOne (talk) 10:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Still needs more work but I have added a bit in here and the history about the Edwards Committee and the Civil Aviation Act 1971 - nothing to do with Labour nationalisation! MilborneOne (talk) 11:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

New long-haul cabins.

In the description of a YouTube video that BA posted of their new Boeing 777-300ER, they comment under the description on some of the new services they will be providing on board. Here, it mentions an 'all new World Traveller and World Traveller Plus cabin' and a much improved and revised entertainment system. Also in the video, the aircraft can be seen fitted with grey seats compared to the current blue ones, clarifying the description (I have checked with BA that the video is not formed of stock footage). I was wondering if anyone had any further information before I insert this into the article?!? Thanks, Wiki Wonda (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I also saw that but I don't know any more than what was stated in the video. Seeing as the colour of the seats is hardly encyclopaedic, I think it should just be left out since the service, legroom etc will in all probability remain the same. The IFE system isn't even mentioned in the cabin section so I don't know if that warrants a new sub-category or if it should be left out completely. Thanks, Plane Person (talk) 11:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC).
I agree, unless it can be shown from refs that this is something notable, then it doesn't meet the threshold for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. - Ahunt (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I have just seen the video, in the comments section British Airways has said the video was made by Boeing. The grey seats that are shown are probably seats fitted to a separate aircraft and the video clip was just included in the British Airways video. British Airways are currently refitting the cabin in Cardiff so it would be impossible to see what the seats will be like considering they haven't been fitted yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt7272727272 (talkcontribs) 13:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this the Speedbird House?

Is File:BritishAirways1980soffices.jpg the Speedbird House? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

replied at Talk:History of British Airways#Is this the Speedbird House. MilborneOne (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Flights from London-Gatwick to Cancun/San Juan

Are these flights a resumption or a brand new service that the airline has never operated before. I know that British Airways served SJU in the past but was it from Gatwick or Heathrow? Snoozlepet (talk) 05:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

A google search shows it's a resumption. They last operated LGW-SJU over 10 years ago, so technically they're resuming the service. 01:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Last 757 Flight

This blog source states that the last flight of the 757 in service with BA was on 30 October 2010. Can we find a better source to use as a ref and add the info to the article? Mjroots (talk) 12:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

British Airways World Cargo

The article says that British Airways World Cargo is a subsidary, I cant find any evidence that it is a separate legal identity rather than just an operating division of British Airways. It is not listed in the 2009/2010 annual report as a subsidary. Anybody have a reliable reference that British Airways World Cargo is a company? MilborneOne (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Seat number change

I've been reverting the edits of an unidentified user three times now and would like to know why he or she keeps removing the detail that the seat numbers vary in a two-class configuration. I feel that this detail is important as if it wasn't included then it would read like there is only one configuration (all Euro Traveller/UK Domestic).

Any comments are useful and if the user concerned is reading this then can you explain why you are changing the information so we can debate it with other members of the community.

Many thanks, Plane Person (talk) 14:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The user keeps changing the table despite the edit being challenged, no need to change the table into a detailed seat by class summary this is an encyclopedia not a travel guide. The total number of seats is ok in comparing types and comments about that seat configuration changing is not unreasonable. No need to detail the exact break-down in seats. Also raised at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines#Seats. MilborneOne (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't planning on making it too detailed as you say but I just think that it could mislead people into thinking there is only one configuration for the short-haul fleet. Perhaps it would be better to have something like:
Seating
UK Domestic: up to 147
European: variable capacity


Just a thought. Thanks for your help, Plane Person (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC).

Dont have a problem with that a summary or total seating is fine, at the moment we still have a detailed class breakdown and my main concern is that not only is the actual seat layout not notable but you could easily have every aircraft with a different seat arrangements which is not really encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

and in the 1980s the airline purchased the Lockheed L-1011.

The above statement cannot be true. The record sleeve for Sound of the Suburbs by The Members features a British Airways Lockheed Tristar and that was released in 1979. Mtaylor848 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You are right British Airways inherited an order for Tristar Is from British European Airways and these were in service from late 1974. It later ordered more Tristars (-200s and -500s in service in the early 1980s). Just needs to be written clearer (the ref actually dates from 1976 which is perhaps when they ordered more aircraft). MilborneOne (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Arms

The image shown is not the full coat of arms as granted by the College of Arms. It is just the shield. The full coat of arms was used on the tail in the Landor livery[6] and is still used on in-flight amenity bags.[7] 121.45.196.98 (talk) 12:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)