Talk:Business aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge (2018)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc Lacoste (talk • contribs) 14:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE business jet and business aircraft

I didn't place the merge tag here, but I endorse the idea. SITH (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a C-fork. Better to have proposed moving Business jet, than to start this page with content deleted from that article, then immediately propose a merge. Strange. - BilCat (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I support the idea of this becoming an article, to me the easiest way is to treat this as the redirect it was until two days ago when M. Lacoste pasted in some information that was deleted from the business jet article, and move that article to here. YSSYguy (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can swap the articles so the main history is kept if we do decide to merge. It just seemed a bit backward and POINTy to do it the way it was done. However, we probably ought to consider whether or not a merger is best at this point, as most of the information in the biz jet article is jet-specific, so a lot of expansion and rewriting will need to be done. I don't know the answer at this point.- BilCat (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The table is new, but the text is a verbatim paste of something I deleted from the business jet article - which I suspect is what prompted M. Lacoste to suggest the merge in the first place. That text could be re-added to the business jet article, the table pasted into that article and then it could be the basis of the business aircraft article. YSSYguy (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I think I like the idea of merging. The Business Jet article is of course self restricted to jet aircraft, which excludes the wide world of turboprops. Merging to a general Business Aircraft article should provide a better overview of the topic. We may want to consider creating a separate List of Business Aircraft article, as model and production info seems to make up a large portion of the current Business Jet article, and trying to include all that info for jets and turboprops in Business Aircraft would probably make the article too cluttered. Sario528 (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge - business jets are a separate and recognised term and adding non-jets and renaming would be nonsense, Other than the garish non-encyclopedic comparison table I not convinced that the definition of business aircraft is correct, like to see a reliable source for that. Some of the aircraft listed would not be considered "business aircraft". Deletion might be the kindess, it could be a good overview of the development of aviation for business but not in its current form. Other than the non-encyclopedic comparison tables the Bizjet article is not that bad so it would be stupid decision to make it a redirect to this tosh. MilborneOne (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is actually proposing that business jet be made into a redirect to this; that article would be the basis of the business aircraft article. Business aircraft is an equally valid term as business jet, and it has been pointed out already that business jets are a subset of business aircraft, whereas not all business aircraft are jets. YSSYguy (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Sorry I proposed it and didn't follow: it forgot to put it on my watchlist! Anyway, I wanted to rename the bizjet article to the more encompassing Business aircraft but it seems too bold, even for me, so I expanded a bit this redirection before proposing the merge. Now sawing it could be relevant as a separate article with a good /history/ section and various categories, I understand it would be also interesting with a short /bizjet/ section and a link to its {{main}} article.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, given that the proposal has been withdrawn by the nominator. Klbrain (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

History of use

Should we mention that some of the early adopters of aircraft to carry out business were politicians? Adolf Hitler campaigning around Germany springs to mind, as does Neville Chamberlain flying to Munich in 1938 to dismember Czechoslovakia and waving his bit of paper on the tarmac at Croydon on his return. What about the Grumman amphibians and the Douglas Dolphin and their use by wealthy individuals to fly to and from New York? Then there are the high-ranking US military receiving their own personal USAAC Douglas C-39s etc. in the 1930s. Post-war saw large numbers of executive conversions of bombers and attack aircraft for business use in the US, as well as DC-3s. All subject to adequate sourcing of course. YSSYguy (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article could do with a lot more history I an not sure that use by politicians doesnt really relate to "business aircraft". I would agree that that executive conversions and the use of the aircraft by business leaders should be included. As you said a lot of military surplus aircraft were converted for business use after the war. There must also be some history of the take up of business use in the 1920s and 1930 which can be added if we find some reliable sources. Companies like Bata (company) were early users and most of the gas and oil companies had fleets of aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]