Jump to content

Talk:Flag carrier/Archive 1

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

Flag carrier list

Why the flag carrier list is no more complete? Emanuele de Pinto 18:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ema92 (talk • contribs)

Here lists a more complete list of flag carriers. The list should be more complete. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=flag+carrier&fulltext=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.213.21 (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Northwest/Delta Merger

What do we want the standard to be for airlines to be included on this page? Delta and Northwest have completed a merger and Northwest is a wholly owned subsidiary of Delta, with Delta's brand being the brand for the combined airline. The merger of their corporate entities is complete, but technically, their operating certificates are currently separate for now, placing Northwest in a similar position to the other airlines with independent certificates owned by Delta: Comair (OH), Compass (CP), and Mesaba (XJ).

Because the airlines have merged into a single corporate entity, I believe strongly that we should go ahead and remove Northwest from this article's list of unofficial US flag carriers. Many of their aircraft have already been repainted and the signage at Northwest's former hubs has been changed over to Delta signage - both at domestic hubs like Detroit and at their primary asian hub of Tokyo/Narita.

User:HkCaGu reverted the original edit that removed Northwest with the justification that their operating certificates are currently not yet merged. But by this article's current definition, "flag carrier" is mostly about corporate entities: "A flag carrier refers to a transportation company, such as an airline or shipping company, that is locally registered in a given country." While Delta now operates with two certificates, NW's old cert and DL's old cert, they are merged into a single airline/shipping company and trade on the NYSE under a single ticker symbol, DAL. By every measure, these two formerly separate airline entities have merged into a single "transportation company."

When America West and US Airways merged and operated under separate certificates for a while, technically the America West operating certificate became part of a US flag carrier - but just as it wouldn't have made sense to add the defunct America West brand temporarily to this list, it doesn't make sense to continue keeping Northwest on this list either.

I'll update the article in roughly a week's time to restore this edit if there are not strong objections. 71.121.200.222 (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If you only consider "corporate", then Air France and KLM are one airline. They are not. Delta and Northwest as AIRLINES have not merged. There are still people working in the Eagan HQ. Delta owns Northwest, but Northwest is not yet Delta. Soon it will be. Painting planes and changing ground signs is a long process and there's no ground to arbitrarily establish any particular "cut-off point" to suddenly consider they're not an airline anymore. Discussion in many other aviation articles have determined that "thou shalt not merge DL and NW yet" still applies. Beside the certificates, crews have not merged, flight numbers have not merged, FF programs have not merged, booking system and fare classes have not merged, websites have not merged. Too much of the "operations" remain separate. HkCaGu (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Made a second edit that I think is a good compromise between both positions - it leaves Northwest in the list, but notes that they are in the process of merging with Delta. 71.121.200.222 (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree...they are still in the process of integrating the 2 carriers. To the person who started the thread: Changing signage to Delta and repainting the NW planes to Delta does not mean that Northwest has disappeared (airport operations are not the same thing as flight operations). So, Northwest is still operating as a seperate carrier until the "operations" have completely merged. FF programs will be combined next month, websites/reservation systems are to be combined in December 2009, and finally, operating certificates are to be combined in January/February 2010. So, until then, Northwest still exists as a seperate carrier. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Air France-KLM

What does this footnote for Air France mean? "Air France was (and is still considered by many) the designated national carrier before it was merged with the Dutch airlines KLM" It doesn't matter how many people consider it to be so, it is not actually the national carrier any more. Besides, this is an article on FLAG carriers, not NATIONAL carriers, and the wiki page on Air France itself says that it is no longer considered the flag carrier since the merger. The table needs to be changed.dzhastin (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Flag Carrier for the UK

On my flight out of LAX airport I saw the virgin atlantic 747-400 G-VHOT "Tubular Belle" at my terminal, the aircraft is clearly marked with the words "Britain's flag carrier", also it shows the image of "belle" in red holding more than three union jack flags. I am really confused since I always subconsciously associated British Airways with the flag carrier of the UK, but again what I see contradicts with it, also with what is written under this entry, can anybody clear this issue? Thanks a lot in advance Laforet (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding to this. Virgin are advertising as "Britain's Flag Carrier". Are they? 87.82.8.21 (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The term is increasingly meaningless. Both BA and Virgin are privately owned companies with no state involvement. Both have union flags plastered all over their aircraft for marketing purposes. --Ef80 (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merger

Isn't "Listed national flag carriers" the same as List of national airlines? ironcito 03:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it should be merged because the two lists are basically the same. Flymeoutofhere 12:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Wikiweakness #977 – statements of commonly held beliefs are presented among verifiable facts as if the beliefs too were verified fact.

I agree too. The definition of flag carrier is too vague. You could have a list of "State owned and operated national airlines", but countries like Canada and the US would not be on this list since all their airlines are privately owned and operated. However, in some countries, like China, virtually all airlines are state owned and operated. In fact, in China, a single governmental department buys all aircraft and distributes it among the state owned and operated airlines. I would have to agree that Air China is no more the sole "flag carrier" of China than American Airlines is the sole "flag carrier" of the US.
I recommend the list in this article be removed. user:mnw2000 20:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Flag carrier for USA

The assertion that the United States of America has two “unofficial” flag carriers is not only unfounded, it misses the obvious. If the United States did, in fact, have a flag carrier, it would be state-owned. Because there are no state-owned carriers in the United States then wouldn’t the airline named after the country be the flag carrier?


American Airlines obviously borrows its name from the continent (as does the nation, i.e. the United States of…)The Wiki page for American Airlines claims that the name American Airways was used as a common brand by a number of independent air carriers. United Airlines, according to the Wikipage, derived its name from United Aircraft - Transport Corp, not from the “United States” as implied on this page.


Information found on Wikipedia is, at best, suspect due to the innumerable weaknesses of the Wikiconcept, but the least WikiScribblers can due is make an effort to see that the claims are somewhat consistant! Why not check the related Wikipage before making goofy claims?


Herd mentality directs people to assume that any airline named after a country is the “flag carrier.” If that were actualy true then neither United nor American would be the flag carrier of the United Stets – it would be USAirways, the only one of the three specifically named after the nation. 202.161.131.69 06:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is no flag carrier for the US, and propose removing American Airlines from that position for the US and for Puerto Rico. 70.22.61.5 19:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I propose that American Airlines remain the flag carrier of Puerto Rico. If you live in P.R., you'd know that AA dominates half the airport and it's the airline we rely on to get to the US. Although other US airlines land here, American's presence is more dominant. Besides, AA has a hub here in PR so I defend American as PR's national airline. Regarding the US's national carrier, the US doesn't own any airline, but some airlines are used by the US goverment and military: ATA's L-1011 are used as charters for transporting troops. My uncle traveled to Germany with USAirways, and the flight was paid by the FAA(he works with them). Also, what someone said about USAirways being the flag carrier is plausible, yet it doesn't fit with the description of a national carrier and other airlines have made their presence clear around the world, like American, Delta, Continental, Northwest, and United. Also, if defunct airlines were classified as flag carriers, Pan Am would have been the flag carrier alongside Eastern. Einsteinboricua 16:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

While flag carrier is not the same as national airline (the latter implies state ownership), the US does not have a flag carrier. The fact that AA is the largest does not automatically give them that title. If people insist on putting the US in the list, then all 6 major US carriers should be listed. DB (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, AA is not the Puerto Rican flag carrier. Having a hub somewhere does not make an airline a flag carrier. Should Northwest be a Japanese flag carrier because of its hub in Tokyo? Flag carrier implies that the airline carries the country's flag (i.e. it is based in that country - or in this case, territory). American is based in Texas, not Puerto Rico. DB (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I am new to this discussion, but it seems obvious that there is a difference of opinion as to what a flag carrier is. This article has two definitions, and since there is no state owned carieer in the US, the first must be the only one that matter with regard to the US. Thus, "A transportation company, such as a shipping or airline company, that is registered in a given state" would apply to almost every US carrier. Certianlly, an argument could be made that Delta or US Air would be considered US flag carriers by this definition.
I propose that the second definition only apply. A carrier that is state owned or operated by a department of the state. Since all US carriers are privately owned and/or operated, then there should be NO flag carriers listed for the US and the PR. user:mnw2000 19:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


Come to think about it, the US has not had a designation national carrier since the days of Pan Am when it was the only carrier allowed to fly internationally. I like the listing that is now being used. user:mnw2000 03:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The United States DOES have a definition for "US Flag Air Carriers" according to the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. App. 1371) and the Fly America Act. The Fly America Act requires that federally funded international travel must be done on a US Flag Air Carrier (when possible). There are 15 designated flag carriers for the US, though no state operated ones. Since this is one of the few hard definitions of a flag carrier it needs to be recognized. dzhastin (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a good read on the topic http://www.dartmouth.edu/~cto/policy/usflagaircarriers.html 69.237.88.63 (talk) 08:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Unofficial?

Who out there is actually determining which airline is “unofficially” the flag carrier?! What a preposterous thing to write. It isn’t as if there is some sanctioning body overseeing the official licensing of “official” flag carriers. This ought to be listed as a “wikiweakness” as well. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

63.219.0.9 08:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


Get rid os the Erroneous Claims

Claiming that American, United, or USAir are the “flag carriers” of the United States is simply erroneous. Fans, employees, and stockholders of those commercial companies may want very much to be able to boast that their airline is the “flag carrier” but in fact, by definition, the United States has never had a flag carrier. Whoever inserted the claim that American and United are both “unofficial” flag carriers is simply ignorant of the definition of, “flag carrier.” I suggest that such a ridiculous claim be removed – the United States should not be on the list because the United States government owns no part of any commercial airline.

Incorrect examples in the list?


  • “Mexico - Aeromexico, Mexicana (unofficial)” – as is the case with the United States, there are no “unofficial” flag carriers. By the definition used on this Wikipage, either Aeromexico and Mexicana are “flag carriers,” or Aeromexico and Mexicana are not “flag carriers.” There is no “unofficial” status.


  • TAM is NOT the flag carrier of Brazil. Until 1965 it was Panair do Brasil, than Varig. Currently, after the financial troubles of Varig, Brazil does not have a true flag carrier. Even considering that TAM has a small Brazilian flag painted on its aircraft. Other companies also have small flags painted, not meaning that it is really a "flag carrier". Moreover, BRA ("Brasil RodoAereo") even has the name of the country in its own name, has several international scheduled and charter flights, but cannot as well be called a Brazilian "flag carrier". Currently, the concept of flag carrier in Brazil has the same trouble that for US. Actually, Brazil no longer has a flag carrier.
  • GOL Transportes Aéreos has only a handful of flights leaving Brazil, and only to South America. Classify it as a flag carrier is a complete proof of ignorance. Gol bought Varig, but the merger is subject to regulations, and the brands will remain independent. Of these two, only Varig is flying to Europe and has plans to fly back to US. Gol does not.


  • “China, People's Republic of - Air China” – there are a number of Chinese carriers branded with different names but under the same administrative control. In essence, all of the carriers in China are part of one, big, state-owned entity. Therefore, how can there be one “flag carrier”?


  • “Hong Kong - Cathay Pacific” – Since June of 1997 Hong Kong has been part of China, therefore how can one city within the nation have a “flag carrier”? Does Canton also have a “flag carrier”? Does Shanghai have its own “flag carrier”?


  • “Hong Kong - Cathay Pacific” – Since June of 1997 Hong Kong has been part of China, therefore how can one city within the nation have a “flag carrier”? Does Canton also have a “flag carrier”? Does Shanghai have its own “flag carrier”? " Hong Kong is a special case. To all intents and purposes it really is a different country. It has its own legal system and currency etc. etc.


  • “China cases” – When the day that Wiki is open in china mainland, these kind of question can be serious. Wiki will get more and more bad impacts day by day. Such as Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau, whether they have flag carrier or not, they should be written under CHINA, but not separately. Think about the future of Wiki. You cannot say that Hongkong, Macau and Taiwan are different countries from China until the day when there are their "national flags" hanging in the front of the building of United Nations.

In the case of Hong Kong, Macau, Puerto Rico, Guam, and other non-nation entities, you could say that they can not have a flag carrier on their own. (I am sure that Delta would like to call themselves the flag carrier of Atlanta.) However, Taiwan is a special case. It is not a member of the UN due to a political decision. However, Taiwan controls their own air traffic system, their own air space and aircraft registered their. By the way, Air China is the ONLY airline that carries the Flag of the PRC. user:mnw2000 20:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A flag carrier is not the same as a national airline. A national airline is state-owned. A flag-carrier may or may not be state-owned, and may or may not be officially designated as "the" flag carrier for a country. It is more of a common use issue than anything. Most countries have one dominant airline that carries that country's flag. It is commonly referred to as the flag carrier. For example, Air Canada is privately owned, but it is often called Canada's "flag carrier". The US really doesn't have one "flag carrier", though. At the very least, the big 6 are all considered US fc's, plus probably Southwest due to its size and success. DB (talk) 02:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Same goes for Mexico. Aeromexico is probably more widely known, but Mexicana has enough attention to fall into that category. DB (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I just looked at the list above in more detail. The comments on Brazil were correct. TAM really isn't the flag carrier there. It's not state-owned, nor officially designated, nor is it even the best-known airline in Brazil. Varig was the flag carrier, and even after the financial problems, its still the best-known Brazilian airline, but the country really doesn't have a flag carrier now. DB (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the chart is that there is no one definition of flag carrier. The most simply definition is that the plane flies the national flag on its plane. TAM does fly the Flag of Brazil. Of course, as you know, it is not a national airlines and the chart reflects that.

Still on the TAM question: looking in spotters websites, like airliners.net, we can see in detail that all major Brazilian airlines feature a small Brazilian flag on its livery. TAM, BRA and OceanAir chose to paint it next to the frontal windows, Varig and GOL painted it in the rear part of the fuselage, next to the horizontal stabilizer. All of them use flags of about the same size. If the criteria to define a "flag carrier" were the existence of the country flag on the planes, then all these airliners should be called flag carriers. In fact, almost all company in the world, if not all, paint a small flag of the country on its aircraft. In the case of TAM, the photo in this article is misleading. It refers to a proposed Airbus A350, and the huge size of the Brazilian flag on the fictitious painting is not the real size on the true planes. The meaning of a "flag carrier" is certainly more related to how well the company is known outside the country, and the perception that foreigners have about the company and its ties to the country of origin (like Qantas to Australia or Air Canada to Canada, but maybe not Delta to United States, for example, though some may think differently). User:Winkler 22:10, 13 January 2007 (GMT-3)

I suggest that we remove the chart from the "Flag Carrier" article and create a new article called "List of National Airlines". The article would then simply be a description of what the term flag carrier means and use to mean. user:mnw2000 05:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Taiwan is seperate from China. China is a making a false claim that they own it. The US considers it a seperate country.

Air Canada Not State Owned or Designated

Why is Air Canada cited as an example of a state owned or designated flag carrier? To my knowledge, it is neither. It may well be an example of a flag carrier, but for neither of the reasons given in the article. --207.161.33.151 16:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Air Canada is a crown corporation in Canada, so it has a special status that other airlines in Canada don't have. 70.22.61.5 19:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

A Canadian crown corporation has at least some portion of ownership or direct investment by the Government of Canada. Now Air Canada may have once have met this criteria, but since coming out of bankruptcy reorganization in 2004 it's been 100% private-owned by ACE Aviation Holdings. Based on the company's historical legacy I suppose it's fine calling it a flag carrier, but I don't think it's really a crown corporation anymore, and I'm certain that it doesn't get any special treatment over other Canadian airlines. If anything the Canadian government probably has place more regulatory restriction on it due to it's marketshare. Achou79 18:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan is not a part of mainland China. See the Taiwan Wiki. It is to all intents a separate country albeit not recognised by the UN to avoid antagonising China. Therefore it is perfectly able to have a Flag Carrier

States that have NO flag carrier, that is state owned or operated airlines

I proposed that we begin a new section that lists countries that have no flag airlines. Then remove all these countries from the list of flag carriers.

Country/Territory Largest Airline
registered in this country		 Notes
Countries and Territories that have NO flag carrier
Canada Air Canada
Puerto Rico American Airlines is largest airlines operating here
United States American Airlines

user:mnw2000 18:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The more I look into it, this list can no longer be considered factual. Virtually every aircraft registered in the US carries the US flag, and, therefore, is considered a flag carrier. In China, virtually all aircraft is owned by the state, but only Air China aircraft carries the flag of the PRC. In Canada, several airlines, other than Air Canada, carries the flag of Canada, but only Air Canada is listed as a flag carrier.

If this chart is to be accurate, then it should carry all airlines that carrier the national flag on its aircraft. Of course, that would be unyielding for countries like the US, most countries in Europe, etc.

user:mnw2000 18:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Since there are so many definitions, how about converting it into a table which goes like this:

Country/Territory Airline Designated
National airline		 Designated
Flag carrier		 State-owned
United States American Airlines No Yes No

I am proposing this half in jest, but it might just work. :)--Huaiwei 18:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I like your chart. My only issue is whether some countries, like the US, have a single flag carrier. Is American Airlines any more a US flag carrier than United Airlines, Delta Airlines or US Airways? Just because the name is American doesn't give it any more right to be called the sole flag carrier than Delta Airlines. For countries that don't have a designated airlines as its flag carrier, such as China (Air China), we could simply list it as the largest airlines.
Country/Territory Airline National Airline
Designated or Historical		 Flag Carrier
Includes the national flag
on its aircraft livery		 State-owned Notes
Canada Air Canada Historical No Air Canada has the Canadian Mapleleaf as part of its logo
China (PRC) Air China Designated Yes Yes
Iraq Iraqi Airways Designated Yes
Taiwan China Airlines Designated
United Kingdom British Airways Historical Yes No
United States American Airlines Yes No American Airlines is the largest US airlines
When referring to the flag carrier of a country, that is more of a common use issue than an official designation. Canadian carriers are privatized and to my knowledge, Air Canada isn't designated by the government as the "official" flag carrier, but it is commonly referred to as Canada's flag carrier. The US does not have one "flag carrier". In essence, all US carriers are flag carriers. AA is the largest overall, but unlike many countries, there is no airline that even comes close to dominating the domestic market. In different regions, different carriers dominate. DB (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
How about simply making a clear indication that "flag carrier" in the above table refers to any airline which paints the national flag on its aircraft? At least this should be far less contentious. Or to make things clearer, we could change the "designated Flag Carrier" column above to "paints the national flag on its aircraft" or something like that?--Huaiwei 13:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
We have an airlines that is considered the "Sole National Airlines" by official designation (i.e. Air China) or by history (i.e. British Airlines), airlines that carry the national flag or flag carrier, and airlines that are state owned and/or operated. As for the US, there is actually no "Sole National Airlines" and all US airlines carry the American Flag on is aircraft. Therefore, in such a case, I simply listed the largest airlines registered in that country and noted it. I suggest we rename the article "Designated National Airlines" and have "Flag Carrier" link to it. user:mnw2000 14:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
"Historical" sounds odd, unless you are refering to them being formerly designated national airlines. Anyway the table dosent require one entry per country. Eg:
Country/Territory Airline Designated Flies the flag State-owned
People's Republic of China Air China Yes Yes Majority
China Eastern Airlines No No Majority
China Southern Airlines No No Majority
United States American Airlines No Yes No
Delta Air Lines No Yes No
United Airlines No Yes No
Possible entries for each field include:

I like the simplicity of your chart. However, many countries has so many airlines, that the chart could be unyielding. China has about 10 different state owned airlines; the US has hundreds of airlines; etc. How do we decide how many airlines for each country to include? Also, since the title of the article is "Flag Carrier", should we include any airlines that does not include the national flag in the livery? How about this: we include a single airlines if that airlines has more than 50% of the air traffic for that country. If no airlines has 50%, then we include all airlines that has more than 25%, which in reality would be limited to three. (I know that many may debate what consitutes market share, but for this article, it does not need to be an exact science. American Airlines and Delta Airlines could be consider to have the larger market share of air traffic depending on the factors used. However, we can all agree that American, United and Delta are the three largest airlines in the US. user:mnw2000 15:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The basis for inclusion is simple. Since we know there are three known "criteria", anyone of which can be interpreted as being a criterion for a "flag carrier" or "national airline", any airline which happens to fit any one of these criteria should be listed. Probably ends up being very unwelding for certain countries, but I dont think they are exhaustive. Do the hundreds of airlines in the US fly the US flag, btw? As for market share, I have to point out it is comparatively uncommon to refer to a "dominant" airline as a "national airline". That many national airlines are protected helps them dominate the local markets, but this phenomena is more of a product then a criteria in itself.--Huaiwei 16:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you on this chart. BTW, every aircraft of a US airlines that I have seen had a little US flag (some that seems to be backwards). I think this may be a requirement. user:mnw2000 17:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed the US for now. China should really just have Air China, since that's the designated flag carrier, which is what the article should be about (since that's the title). However, the US doesn't have a "designated" flag carrier, so any US carrier should really be listed. At the very least, that includes the "Big 6" - AA, UA, DL, NW, CO, and US. Southwest should probably also be included, since it's gotten to be quite a large airline. In most countries that don't have a designated flag carrier, there's one airline that stands out in most people's minds as the primary carrier in that country. It doesn't work like that in the US. Ask someone in Asia and they'll probably say United or Northwest. Ask someone in Europe and they may say Continental. Ask someone in Latin America and they'll say American. In Africa, Delta is the only major US carrier to serve the region. There is no US airline that is prevalent throughout the world; each has a region it focuses on, and it has limited service to other areas. DB (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

New Chart

The below chart will replace the list on this article once it is deemed complete.

<Chart has been moved to main page>

How about moving this table to the main article space even before its completion? The history can then accurately reflect the inputs. Meanwhile, perhaps its a good idea to also include the source for each entry above? Just a source will do.--Huaiwei 15:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be completed soon. I will move it shortly. As for sources, designation is easy in countries like Cuba and Iran, but difficult in countries where all airlines are privately owned like the US. Flying the flag source could be as simple as a photograph of a plane with the flag visibly seen in its livery. State ownership may be a little more difficult. I was using Wikipedia for this information, but it may be found externally as well. user:mnw2000 16:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

USA Removal

There are good arguments not to include the US in this article's chart since every US airline carrier is a flag carrier since they all are required to include a US flag in their livery. However, several people made the argument that we should list the top three, even if there are more carriers that carry the flag, to simply be as informative as possible. So the question is on the table: Do we include countries where all carriers registered in the country carry the national flag?

May I suggest we list the top three carriers registered in that country with a reference to a note that states "All carriers registered in this country are required, or do so by tradition, to carry the national flag in their livery. user:mnw2000 02:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that would introduce a certain POV. Alternatively, how about simply having one link pointing to the category of airlines in a country with an accompanying note explaining the situation?--Huaiwei 04:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok I just added it in as an illustration. Comments please?--Huaiwei 05:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Huaiwei on this. Why list 3 and not 4 or 5, etc? Just providing a link to the category is the best way to handle it, since that effectively lists all of them without actually putting 100 or so airlines in the list. DB (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we have had many people change the US listing for this chart. The question is whether the US has a flag carrier is settled since all US carriers carry the US flag. The next question is whether we should list a single airlines such as American Airlines, or a category to demonstrate that all US carriers are flag carriers. I am open to both suggestions, but we should discuss it here in the talk page. When I converted the list to a chart, I did not expect such a lively debate on this issue. Maybe the author of this article has a suggestion on the original purpose of this article in defining a flag carrier. (My two cents is that if we list American are we saying that United, Delta, US Air, Continental, and the rest are no flag carriers?) user:mnw2000 06:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The only sensible way to list it is to use the category; otherwise it is implying that UA, DL, CO, and others aren't actually flag carriers. DB (talk) 06:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Debate about what is and isn't a flag carrier

The reason the original list was expanded to the current chart is that there is that there is no one definition of flag carrier. There are actually three. The chart has a column for whether the airlines is designated a national carrier (such as Air China), simply has a national flag on its plane (such as TAM) and if the airlines is state-owned.

I suggest that we remove the chart from the "Flag Carrier" article and create a new article called "List of National Airlines". The article would then simply be a description of what the term flag carrier means and use to mean. user:mnw2000 05:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A cautionary note on the new article's name, as "flag carrier" and "national airline" may take on a slightly different meaning. For example, it may be considered politically incorrect to call "flag carriers" of non-independent territories "national airlines".--Huaiwei 05:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Germany

I'm quite new to the whole "Flag carrier" concept, but whatever it implies, Air Berlin is NOT a flag-carrier. they are a generic low-cost-airline, as are TUIfly, easyjet or Ryanair. -- ExpImptalkcon 00:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the term "flag carrier" is really vague. One definition is simple, does its planes carry the official national flag in its livery? Air Berlin does. The next is is it the "national carrier". In the early days of air travel, many countries had one airlines that provided international travel. Even the US had given Pan Am a monopoly on international travel for some time. Now this designation is mostly historical. The third is from the old days of air travel as to whether the government owns the airlines (or part of it). Of course, most airlines in the western world are privately owned. Some still maintain a small minority ownership which, by itself, designates that airlines has a special relationship with the government. This does NOT apply to Air Berlin. However, since the German flag flies on each Air Berlin plane, it is a flag carrier by definition. The reason I use a chart is so we can list each of the three criteria to avoid confusion. user:mnw2000 00:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Wouldn't bmi be more of a national carrier of Britain rather than Virgin? Brylcreem2 13:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

From the above comment I'm guessing that at some stage Virgin Atlantic Airways were in the table (at today's edit state it's BAW only for UK); there would certainly be an argument for their presence for UK in the table, as in 1997, when BA went for the "World Images" branding, Virgin introduced the Union Flag onto its aircraft, along with the tagline "Britain's Flag Carrier".Bill Martin 20:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


State Owned

The current State Owned column has a status of Full| Majority | Minority | Joint Venture | No. Can I suggest the additional value "Formerly" to designate those carriers which are now privatised but which were once State Owned - it may help explain why, for instance, BAW appears in the UK column but BMA and VIR don't.Bill Martin 20:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"Designated"

There are several references (including in the table) to whether an airline is a "designated" flag carrier. Who designates, for example, British Airways as such. If it's just that it used to be (when nationalised) or that it's generally considered such, I wouldn't have thought that's good enough for a word like "designated". 81.158.0.164 (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You can actually see the footnote related to British Airways as to why it is an officially "designated" flag carrier. It is ultimately the goal for every entry to have such referencing to avoid allegations of WP:OR.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this article a hoax

I wasnt sure if this article was a hoax or misinterpretation of english. A flag carrier is nothing to do with carrying or showing the flag (or as it says showing the sate flag apparent for public view). The term flag carrier was to do with designated airlines associated with route agreements. Within air service agreements (which came out of the Paris Convention of 1919) each country designated a specific airline (called a flag carrier) for that route. Although most flag carriers were state owned they did not have to be. Once a designated flag carrier on that route an airline had some protection against competition on that route except from the other countries designated carrier. It was also true that flag carriers could not just drop routes if they were set up under the air service agreements. So a flag carrier appears to be an airline designated under an air service agreement to service a particular route. So one country could have 50 air service agreements and 50 different flag carriers, which is why the United States had a number of airlines all designated as flag carriers at the same time but on different routes. A lot of this has been undone by airline and route deregulation. MilborneOne (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is a total misinterpretation of the actual definitions of what a flag carrier actually is. Flag carriers and national airlines are two completely different concepts in civil aviation, although for some countries their national airline may be their only flag carrier. Additionally, it is technically impossible for non-sovereign entities, e.g. Faroe Islands, to have a flag carrier, as it doesn't negotiate external treaties with other nations. However, this doesn't apply to all non-sovereign entities, such as Hong Kong, which is responsible for its own treaty negotiations. The lists need complete referencing --Russavia (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the above two users may wish to read preceesing discussions before commenting already discussed issues. While this list definitely suffers from a lack of referencing with plenty of work needed to brush it up to an acceptable standard, it certainly fails to help if the above interpretations of flag carriers/national airlines lack referencing themselves.--Huaiwei (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I cant speak for anybody else but the previous discussion on this page only supports the fact that this article is nothing to do with flag carrier but is really about national or nationalised carriers and even that had been debated before. At least agree that a flag carrier is not an airline that has a flag painted on it! which is obviously nonsense. One reference that may be of interest [1]. MilborneOne (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
That is a great source worthy of inclusion in the article, although you cannot assume it is the only definition around. That flag carriers are related to actual flags flown is actually related to Maritime laws, so kindly do not discount that fact just because you think the relationship is absurdly simplistic.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
No I accept that it is only one source I found on a quick search but I still question the maritime law interpretation that All vessels (aircraft or ships) are required to prominently display the national flag of the country of their registry. Does anybody have a more official or NGO definition because if it is law then it would seem that not all aircraft carry the flag of registry against maritime law (which I dont think applies to aircraft anyhow). A quick look at CAP523 from the UK Civil Aviation Authority (The Display of Nationality and Registration Marks on Aircraft: Guidance for Owners)[2] has not mention of mandatory flag markings. Some countries do mandate that all aircraft have a flag display, I think Switzerland is one - presumably we need to list every swiss aircraft as a flag carrier! MilborneOne (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
And the United States is another one, hence you will notice all American-registered airlines are already included in the list!--Huaiwei (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
shuffle left - I would suggest that this list should not include airlines just because they have a national flag on them and are not the national airline. Interestingly British Airways says flies the flag when in fact it does not appear to have a union flag on it other than a representation of the colours on the tail! MilborneOne (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
So how would you handle the case of the US, for example, since non are officially designated, nor are any of that state-owned? Since the rights to fly the US flag is removed as a criterion, the US entry can be removed completely from this list.--Huaiwei (talk) 02:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree - USA should be removed MilborneOne (talk) 12:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure. And reignite the long-term disputes over this entry despite repeated efforts to remove them?--Huaiwei (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Flag Carrier v. National Carrier

Hope this helps.

A country's 'Flag carriers' are all of the airlines owned partially or wholly by residents of a country. The context that matters is cabotage: in the absence of agreements to the contrary, only a country's 'flag carriers' may carry passengers and cargo between two points in their own country.

'Flag carrier' has often referred to any carrier permitted by a nation to operate international services under the terms of a bilateral or multilateral treaty or agreement. In the context of open skies agreements or LCCs operating within the EU, that definition perhaps has little significance these days. But it still matters to some countries and carriers, so the term does have some currency and I do appreciate the work put into this page.

A national carrier is a carrier partially or wholly owned or operated by a national government.--216.168.60.230 (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Source ? MilborneOne (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The Flag Carrier Of The United Kingdom

The three main airlines of the United Kingdom are: British Airways- National Airline and designated Flag Carrier. Virgin Atlantic- Virgin Atlantic holds the title of Britains Flag Carrier on its 747 and has the Union Jack on its winglets but it was never designated the National Flag Carrier, and British Midland Airways.

The Virgin use of Britain's Flag Carrier is a marketing thing and nothing to do with being a designated flag carrier. British Midland is now BMI not really a flag carrier either. MilborneOne (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I am aware British Midland changed names to BMI and I never said BMI was a flag carrier I was just pointing out that it is the third largest airline in the United Kingdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.191.187 (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I appreciate you are new but note this page is to discuss the article Flag carrier and not the largest airlines of the UK. MilborneOne (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I was pointing out the flag carrier of the UK, I dont see any harm in doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.191.187 (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

United Arab Emirates

Does Ethiad and Emirates both carry the flag for the UAE or just Ethiad?? I'm confused —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.191.187 (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

In UAE, each individual emirate can often act as if they are independent countries. Emirates is the flag carrier of Dubai, Ethihad for Abu Dhabi (earlier it was Gulf Air for Abu Dhabi and Air Arabia for Sharjah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.171.20 (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Challenge

I cannot understand how this article continues to exists on Wikipedia in its current state. The list is fraud with baseless assumptions and guesswork. It scream WP:OR all over, as the tags suggest. Just because the OR tags are there does not mean it's okay to leave the list as is. The table should be reduced to only national carriers that can be sourced (ie the list should be 20 times less than it is now). The continued allowance of this inaccurate data defies all goals of the Wikipedia project. Rasadam (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ireland's Flag Carrier??

Will Ireland's new proposed airline "RyanAtlantic" take the place of "Aer Lingus" and become the national flag carrier of Ireland?? "RyanAtlantic" is set on becoming a full service airline intended to rival airlines such as "Virgin Atlantic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.181.52 (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Legacy Carrier section or article?

I am putting this comment here because I am not sure where else to make it. Please tell me if there is a particular page on Wikipedia for article suggestions. Increasingly I have heard the term "legacy carrier". For instance, it is in the Virgin American wikipedia entry. Since legacy carrier is a term similar to flag carrier and national airline, should it be included under this article? At the very least, there should be some wikipedia entry explaining this term, whether here or as a separate article. --Bruce Hall (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Truthfully "Legacy carrier" is a term used to disparage older established airlines in the press by biased editors, and who buy into the tripe of the public relations machines of low cost, up start, and new carriers try to succeed against the old guard established carriers.

Uncyclopedia material sneaking in here?

Flag carrier being any airline that has a countries flag on it? This is an April Fool joke that has accidentally hung around right? [3] --86.164.126.9 (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well said, 86.164. It is indeed a joke to suggest that flag carrier could ever mean the aircraft has a pretty flag painted on it! - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Flag Carrier of India

The designated flag carrier for India is Air India.Wikipedia states that both Air India and Indian are flag carriers.Now Indian airlines and the aviation companies that it owns(Alliance air or Air India regional) no longer exist and has been merged with Air India. The Indian airlines group does not even have it's own website,with it's website being that of Air India.The planes that Indian airline owns are a part of Air India's fleet and they sport a logo "Indian".But however the airline does not operated it's own flights and all flights are operated by Air India post merger. The merger resulted in creation of the following airlines in India :- Air India(the official and designated flag carrier.It also includes the planes from Indian airlines with an Indian Logo on them) Air India express ( the low cost , no frills arm of Air India) Air India regional ( Formerly Alliance air and was owned by Indian airlines) Air India Cargo ( The cargo division of Air India) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.39.79 (talk) 13:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

List

I have restored the list which seems to be a useful component of this article. There are some suggestions that the list is OR. These seem fanciful since it is not difficult to establish whether an airline is a flag carrier or not - we just look for sources. I have added citations for Quantas and Alitalia. Folk who find particular entries to be suspect should discuss them here or tag them individually please. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The list is so messed up at this point it would be better to removed every airline that does not have a source and let people add back the airlines one at a time with a source. A consensus was already reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flag carrier to remove the list. Spikydan1 (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
No, the only decision made there was that the article should not be deleted. The full list is best retained for now as it's a lot of work to reconstruct such a list. Any doubtful entries can be tagged with the {{fact}} template or similar. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I would have to disagree the discussion was keep based on the fact the list would be removed. It is unsourced and would be better removed or moved to an article on national airlines rather than flag carriers. MilborneOne (talk) 11:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
No, the closing summary was Nominator's comment at the bottom pretty much constitutes a withdrawal and this would've been WP:SNOW anyway.. And only 3 out of 7 participating editors urged that the list be removed. This is not a majority, let alone a consensus. And since the discussion was truncated, it did not represent the wider community - editors such as myself. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
It looked like 5/5 editors said the list should go plus one person who posted on the talk of the deletion page. The list has been 99% unsourced for the last 11 months and over that time no one has done anything to it but add more unsourced materal. Spikydan1 (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
That was then and this is now. I have sourced three entries and it was easy to do so. Are there any other particular entries that you consider to be original? Please justify or provide evidence for the tag which you have replaced so that I or other editors may refute it. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
3 sources is nowhere near what the list needs...The whole list need a source to a creditable website that has a similar list...Or every airline needs a source. Look at World's largest airlines for an example , some of the lists have one source that has a similar table on it while other lists have sourced for every airline such as the fleet size list. Spikydan1 (talk) 05:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

American Airlines listed as U.S. flag carrier?

Listing American Airlines as the "de facto" U.S. flag carrier appears to be original research. I'm inclined to either remove it and instead state that the U.S. has no single flag carrier, and provide additional details in a note. What do other editors think? Majoreditor (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Remove it, The United States no longer has an offical flag carrier. This is just one of the many disputes to as why the list was deleted the in the first place and should be deleated because most nations no longer have a lag carrier. Spikydan1 (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
OK. Majoreditor (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Please don't remove complete entries such as this as this table should obviously have an entry for each major country. If the entry is disputed then the contents can be amended or tagged which allows other editors to see that there is a need to research and correct the entry. In this case, I have revised the entry for the USA, supplying a source. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

US flag carrier/national airline

From what i can see this topic has been discussed on numerous occasions but still has not yet been resolved. Simply there is no designated flag carrier/national airline of the United States since the days of Pan Am. Although Pan Am was not a state owned airline or designated flag carrier/national airline it was the only american airline allowed to operate international flights. Pan Am, was the principal international airline of the United States from the 1930s until its collapse on December 4, 1991. To date there are six legacy carriers of the United States commonly referred to as 'The Big Six' they are as follows: 1)Delta Air Lines- Delta has now become the largest airline of the United States and also the largest airline of the world as it has merged with Northwest Airlines to form the worlds Global airline. 2)Northwest Airlines- Merged with Delta. 3)American Airlines. 4)Continental Airlines. 5)United Airlines. 6)U.S Airways. Hope this helps on this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.242.37 (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

  • It seems quite resolved to me. The USA has officially designated flag carrier airlines as a matter of Federal law. I have restored the entry which explains this and the earlier status of Pan Am, providing sources. Concepts such as The Big Six seem to be something else - a matter of size or market presence which is not the same thing. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • If there are officially designated flag carrier airlines as a matter of Federal law then why in the case of these airlines are they not stated. No one officially knows if a designated flag carrier or national airline actually exists its just simply a matter of opinion and I believe that this entry on a US flag carrier is widely open for discussion. In the case of The Big Six the six airlines listed are the principal international airlines of the United States there are no others so therefore they are commonly known as the flag carrying airlines of the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.203.40 (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The requirements of the Fly America Act do not define standard-bearing airlines. That the term used is "U.S. flag air carrier" is a confusing coincidence of terminology - in much the same way as firemen both put fires out and keep them burning. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Flag carriers are not a matter of opinion - they are established by national law and international treaty. Confusion seems to arise because some countries such as the USA have more than one major airline. Typically, the usage arose in the context of bilateral air service agreements in which each country would designate the airline(s) which would provide services between the two countries. For example, until recently the UK and USA designated that two airlines each would fly between their countries. The designated airlines were BA, Virgin, United and AA. These then were the flag carriers on that route. That situation has now opened up due to the Open Skies agreement between the USA and EU but there is still a clear legal sense in which airlines are associated with a particular flag or nation and this is especially true of the USA which has legal restrictions upon ownership of its airlines and which limits certain types of service such as internal and government travel to these national airlines. Our article needs considerable improvement to explain this clearly. Perhaps we should start by removing the table which generates so much edit warring. Its presentation seems to oversimplify the issue in a misleading way and we should try a new approach. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Do you have a source for the assertion[4] that "U.S. flag air carrier" refers to the same thing we're discussing here (standard-bearers), as opposed to simply airlines registered in the U.S.? 81.110.104.91 (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


Shipping

This article seems to give undue weight to aviation which is bit off since aircraft, unlike ships, don't actally carry flags. I have started a section on shipping to address this and will expand this. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

National airline

National airline currently redirects here. Would it be more appropriate for it to redirect to Government-owned corporation? Biscuittin (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say no: mostly, people mean the same using national airline as when saying flag carrier, I think. Greetings, Belgian man (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes this chart of flag carriers needs to be divided into:

1) government owned national flag carrier corporations, and 2) privatized (no government support) but symbolic flag carriers once government owned and nationally sponsored.

many of these government owned corporations are UNFAIRLY renowned for providing superior service and having the most modern fleets, with the latest passenger technologies..... although they are unfairly subsidized when compared to purely capitalist and free enterprise airlines which often times have to compete on the very same routes.

I am not faulting governments for owning airlines, I just do not believe such comparisons are accurate in this chart when when none state owned corporations have to compete with state owned corporations, and these government back entities are provided with renown, or in the case of the old AeroFlot which also served a purpose, scorn.

In short this chart needs work.

Lithuanian flag carrier

I've read that lithuanian flag carrier was the now defunct LaL. Is there an utter flag carrier airline in Lithuania? Is FlyLal Charters the current one?--Ojota (talk) 09:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Paraguay

Paraguay's long standing Flag Carrier was state-owned Líneas Aéreas Paraguayas (LAP, or "Air Paraguay" to the gringos), founded in 1963. An old LAP Boeing 707-320B that was used as Presidential Plane can still be seen mothballed (or rusting?) at Silvio Pettirossi International Airport (ASU/SGAS).

LAP was sold to Equatorian carrier SAETA in 1993, the Paraguayan Government still retaining some stakes, and was renamed LAPSA due to legal requirements (S.A. stands for Sociedad Anónima, i.e., "Air Paraguay, Inc.")

In 1996, TAM's founder Rolim Amaro bought LAPSA in order to gain control over its international routes. Planes were extracted from TAM's fleet but personnel remained local (ex-LAP employees).

At that time TAM's biggest planes were Fokker 100, so flights to Europe and North America were no longer possible. The Paraguayan company received the fantasy name of TAM Mercosur to reflex its main area of operations (Mercosur=Mercado Común del Sur, Southern Common Market, politico-economical entity comprising Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay). The Paraguayan Government still retained a small stake in the company and still considered it Paraguay's Flag Carrier, thought gone were the days of a Presidential Plane.

In 2008, TAM Mercosur merged its corporate structure into that of TAM Linhas Aéreas, adopting a new name, TAM Airlines (gringo name of TAM Linhas Aéreas).

So, TAM Airlines (Paraguay subsidiary), with 5,2 percent of its stakes in the hands of the Paraguayan Government, is still Paraguay's Flag Carrier?

By now, many people have noticed that those new Airbus 320 coming to Asunción display prominently in their fuselages the motto "Proud to be Brazilian". An era has ended.

References are in Portuguese and Spanish:

http://www.tam.com.br/b2c/vgn/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=b4ad09f1157f2210VgnVCM1000000b61990aRCRD

http://archivo.abc.com.py/2008-04-09/articulos/405329/tam-de-brasil-unifica-operaciones-con-filial-paraguaya-tam-airlines

http://www.abc.com.py/nota/130772-Cuestionan-la-torpeza-del-Gobierno-en-la-concesi%C3%B3n-de-las-rutas-a%C3%A9reas/

Aldo L (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

List of flag carriers

As per various discussions above, as well as the discussion on the AfD page here 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Flag_carrier

I have deleted the unsourced material in the table that lists flag carriers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canbackt (talk • contribs) 17:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Take a more careful look at the year. That AfD is from 2008, not 2010. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but all of the same info is still there and has not been addressed for 2+ years. Someone has to address this because this unsourced material as been here for years. Spikydan1 (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry, we will get there (eventually). I'll see what I can do over this Christmas. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It has been over 5 months and the table remained in its poor and unverifiable state, with less than 10% of the entries supported by sources. I deleted the unsourced information as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence Gfcvoice (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Update on 28 June 2011: OhanaUnited: your comment on your edit 05:09, 28 June 2011 was "almost all airlines have been appropriate sourced at http://www.travel-images.com/airline-codes-ab.html". I agree with this - the airlines exist. However the source you provided does not provide verification as to why the airlines listed are flag carriers. As per my comment on 18 June, the burden of evidence rests with you to demonstrate that the airlines listed are flag carriers. See policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence Gfcvoice 28 June 2011 (UTC)

First, it's not whether the airline exists or not. The link specifically mentions which airlines are flag carriers and thus meets your concern of "burden of evidence". Second, if your concern is true, then you're part of a very minority because those airlines' articles in Wikipedia (over 100 in total) stated that they are flag carriers and other editors did not share your concern. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply OhanaUnited.

Airlines claimed to be flag carriers The web site you listed does state for some (but not all) airlines that they are flag carriers, however it does not go beyond this. For these airlines (eg. Air Algerie), it does not go beyond this. In these situations, the web site http://www.travel-images.com/image-bank.html does not meet WP:RS. As per its "about" page: "Travel-Images.com is an image bank service covering every corner of the world." I doubt that the aviation industry considers an image bank web site to be an expert on which airlines are flag carriers.

Airlines not claimed to be flag carriers There are many airlines where the http://www.travel-images.com/ does not state that they are flag carriers. Albanian Airlines, AeroKing Andorra and Cabo Verde Airlines - TACV are just three examples of this, but it's likely there are others. In any case, as a result of the http://www.travel-images.com/ source being mentioned outside the table, this allowed editors to add/amend table entries without providing citations for their changes.

you're part of a very minority comment One possible reason why other editors did not share my concern is that they passively accepted the bare-assertion that an individual carrier is deemed to be a 'flag carrier' without questioning the statement. However this does not necessarily mean they actively agreed that the airlines in question are flag carriers.

I concede that many articles in Wikipedia for individual airlines assert that they are flag carriers. If and when I have the time and inclination to do so, where these statements are not properly sourced using reliable sources, I will add citation needed tags. However for now I will focus on improving this article. For example, since my edits on 18 June, other editors have added sourced statements regarding Finland, New Zealand and Argentina, and this has improved the overall quality of the article. Gfcvoice 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone alerted me to the fact that there was edit warring going on over flag carriers. I've looked at the article and this discussion and have a few observations:
  1. Rather than get into revert warring, it is best to discuss matters on the talk page. Collaborative editing and consensus are the way that WP articles are written.
  2. Is everyone agreed on a definition of "flag carrier"? If not, that would be a good place to begin a conversation.
  3. Gfcvoice is correct that sources are needed for all claims that a particular airline is a "flag carrier." However, normally a {{refimprove}}, {{refimprovesection}} or {{citation needed}} tag is placed on an article, section or specific case, respectively, to alert other editors of the need for citations.
  4. I'm not sure which version is easiest to work from. OhanaUnited suggests that the earlier version (I assume he means with tags) would be best. I would be interested in hearing editors' views on this.
  5. It has been pointed out that many of the articles refer to various airlines as flag carriers (without citations). This seems to me a problem that also needs correcting.
  6. I am willing to mediate, informally, if that is desired or you could make a request at MedCab if you like.
When I looked at a couple of airlines I have some familiarity with, I found that it wasn't easy to get citations. For example Air Canada was a flag carrier ("national airline"), but was privatized in 1988. I don't think it is a flag carrier anymore, but I wasn't able to get confirmation of that. Air France also was a national airline, but was privatized and then merged with KLM. It seems clear that it is no longer a flag carrier, but I'm not sure there is a citation to support this either way.
Please comment on the foregoing and let me know if you would like me to mediate. Sunray (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sunray, thank you for your above comments, and I will address these using the same numbering system.

1. Agree. As I mentioned on the [Project Aviation page] I was disappointed that OhanaUnited accused me of making disruptive edits without first addressing the points I made above.

2. I agree that it is important to reach consensus on the definition of flag carrier. I believe this is clear in the article, taking one or both of the following forms:

(a) current or former government ownership (even if the ownership is/was not 100%) and/or (b) given aviation rights not available to other carriers.

I welcome discussion on this point regarding “flag carrier” definition.

3. Agree. However, editors have been and/or should have been aware of the need for citations. Specifically:

(3a) As I stated on the Project Aviation page, "the entire article has been tagged with a "needs citations" banner since December 2009 and the table itself had a "needs citation" banner from February 2010, until I removed the unsourced material."

(3b) Furthermore, I removed unsourced table entries on 18 June, nearly six months after OhanaUnited reinstated the unsourced entries on 20 December 2010. ie, OhanaUnited has known for over 5 months that the table's reliability was under question.

(3c) As I stated on the Project Aviation page, the table has been under dispute for many years, as per earlier comments on the talk page. eg., the entire table was deleted on 17 July 2009 by Colonel Warden.

4. I believe we could start with the [current version] and work from there. As mentioned above, since my edits on 18 June, other editors have added sourced statements regarding Finland, New Zealand and Argentina, and this has improved the overall quality of the article. I note that in OhanaUnited's most recent edit on 28 June, these improvements were lost. However it would be useful to have comment from users other than myself and OhanaUnited.

5. I agree that this is a problem, however this is not relevant to the discussion of the Flag Carrier page.

Regarding your examples of Air Canada and Air France:

First, you confirmed what I (and probably other editors) have noticed, that it is difficult to find reliable sources to confirm that carriers are “flag carriers”. This is the problem with the table contents – editors inserting new content without providing verification.

Second, given that both Air Canada and Air France have a history of state ownership, then they could be deemed to be flag carriers under the heading of “former state ownership”. If you agree with this classification, then a source demonstrating the history of government ownership would be sufficient. I am interested in your feedback on this.

6. I question the need for mediation. I followed the process outlined in point #3 above, ie, deleted unsourced material 5 months after OhanaUnited’s edit in December 2010. I also refer you to the comments above dated 28 June, addressing the problems with using http://www.travel-images.com/airline-codes-ab.html as the source for the entire table. Gfcvoice (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed response, Gfcvoice. My comments were with respect to this article, specifically. I note that it was tagged with a "refimprove" tag in February. I also note that you have done extensive work on the article this month. You have developed the table in a way that is likely to improve understanding of flag carriers and also demonstrate graphically the evolutionary changes in the industry. However, I must tell you that such a major change to an article is best discussed on the talk page first. Often disagreements are minimized if this course is followed. I commend it to you.
I would like to hear other views on the best version to work from. The current table does seem to have advantages over the former one, but I find it pretty skimpy. Perhaps additional information could be added into it (in some cases with "citation needed" tags added). I take your point about mediation not being needed. However, the best way to move out of a dispute is to begin to regard the other editor(s) as allies in this great, but difficult, project of collaborative editing. Sunray (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback Sunray. I agree that it would be great if additional [verifiable] information was added to the table. However I question why any unverified information should be reinstated, even if "citation needed" tags are used. As mentioned above in points 3a to 3c, the table was tagged as requiring citations in February 2010. The community already had over 15 months to provide citations. I agree that it is worthwhile to regard other editors as allies. On this point, you can see from my edit on 21 June, I added an additional source for an airline added by another editor on that same date. Furthermore I recently reinstated Air Canada to the list, providing a source for its history of government ownership until 1989. I welcome discussion regarding Air Canada's inclusion on the list if you do not believe it is Canada's flag carrier. Gfcvoice (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Certainly Air Canada was a flag carrier and thus should be on the list. With respect to verifiability, not all information has to be verified. If something is demonstrably true, it doesn't need to be sourced. For example, Air France obviously was a flag carrier, so would be a good example of the kind of information that could be added to the table, with a "citation needed" tag. 22:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again for your input Sunray. I agree with you that not all information has to be verified. I have reviewed some Wikipedia essays on this topic, such as WP:LIKELY, WP:CK, WP:BLUE, WP:NOTBLUE, WP:PARIS. For the record:

(1) [The vast majority of Wikipedia users] would not be aware of Air France's history as a government owned airline, and I do not believe the airline's "flag carrier status" meets the idea of "demonstrably true" or [common knowledge], but

(2) I would not contest Air France being reinstated with a "citation needed" tag, because I am aware of its history as a government-owned airline.

However for nearly all other airlines, "flag carrier status" would not be something that is immediately obvious or demonstrably true, and I would contest the addition of other/different airlines without sources. Most people (especially those without an interest in aviation) would not be aware of the identity of flag carriers of most nations, including Air Canada and Air France. Having said that, I recognise that the preceding discussion relates to a hypothetical situation - as yet no one has added unsourced material to the table. Gfcvoice (talk) 05:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a productive discussion. If we continue taking specific examples and looking for sources, it should be possible to build up the table fairly quickly. In the case of Air France, I found lots of sources that call it a "flag carrier," but they were mostly travel agencies, thus not reliable sources. What do you think of this source?
http://www.orlyairport.co.uk/flights/airlines/
I cannot find any copyright info for the site, so I don't know who owns it. Sunray (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Although the source you listed is better than the http://www.travel-images.com/airline-codes-ab.html that was used previously, it is only a "fan site". If you agree with the idea that Air France is a flag carrier because of its history of government ownership, then would there be a site that describes this? eg. Information about government ownership on the Air France web site, and/or news articles describing the privatisation? Gfcvoice (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it can be termed a "fan site" since it is a .co.uk link, which implies that it is commercial. It may be the airport authority, creating a website in English, though I can't get confirmation of that. BTW, these discussions are usually easier to read it you indent one level each time. {{od}} is usually used either when a thread has been indented so much that the posts are overly compressed, or to begin a new topic. Sunray (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the tip about the OD tag. I wasn't sure how to indent one level, so I was using that instead. Then I reviewed the syntax you used ::: and worked it out. Yes you're right it could be the airport authority creating the web site. As an aside, and going off-topic, two friends of mine have their own personal .com web site / blog, even though they don't own a company. The reason I gave the "fan site" label is because the layout is similar to that of a Wordpress dot com blog. One friend of mine has a dot com web site which is merely a redirect to his blog. Gfcvoice (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, good point. I will keep looking for a citation. Sunray (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"None"

Seems pretty pointless for USA to be on the list and a not a few other nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.101.122 (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your comment. However the reason for the "none" entry for the US partly reflects that many (if not most) editors are based in the USA. Gfcvoice (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Denmark, Norway and Sweden, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Sharjah

OhanaUnited, your comment "don't "blanket" tag" isn't very constructive. Furthermore it incorrectly describes the rationale for tagging these airlines as needing a citation.

Although there is a footnote stating that

"SAS is partly owned by the governments of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, and is the flag carrier for all three nations."

and another three footnotes:

"UAE: Etihad Airways is owned by the government of Abu Dhabi, a constituent emirate of the UAE."

"UAE: Emirates Airline is owned by the government of Dubai, a constituent emirate of the UAE."

"UAE: Air Arabia is minority owned by the government of Sharjah, a constituent emirate of the UAE."

None of these four statement are supported by a citation. Hence the need for a citation for these four statements. Gfcvoice (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

North Korea

Added in Air Koryo as the state-owned flag carrier of the DPRK, hopefully my cite and addition were viable. Feng277394 (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Notes column

According to this and this, I'm planning to wipe out the Notes column of the table. Nevertheless, I'd like to get some thoughts before doing that. Please provide some feedback regarding the matter. Thank you.--Jetstreamer Talk 11:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed, as per WP:SILENT.--Jetstreamer Talk 11:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

More sources needed

The {{refimprove}} tag is now updated. I've re-tagged the article as needing more sources in order to avoid tag bombing it.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually you make tag bombing: section and facts already tagged. Please stop. AGAIN: Give reasons. I gave a lot. See comments and talk. DETAILS ! Tagremover (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I continue with this discussion at my talk page, where I've requested the inervention of an admin.--Jetstreamer Talk 02:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Aerosvit Airlines - Bankrupcy

Shouldn't Aersvit be removed? It states that the airline has ceased operations. I just wanted to talk about it before I did anything :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georges1998 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. And this is not the proper talk page to discuss whether this airline has ceased operations or not. However, as I edit the Aerosvit Airlines article as well, I can confirm that the airline is operating.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Issues with Lacsa

Can anybody explain how Lacsa is simultaneosuly state-owned and owned by TACA? --Jetstreamer (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's a joint-venture or each holds a certain percentage but not 100%? OhanaUnitedTalk page 12:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I've marked the entry as having a contradiction.--Jetstreamer Talk 11:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Some questions

Hi, I've just had another look at the "list of flag carriers", and would like to ask some questions to editors interested in that matter (I am ot really):

  1. Why is Dragonair listed as a flag carrier? Just being the subsidiary of a flag carrier does not qualify for the list, or does it?
  2. Concerning the United Arab Emirates, what about RAK Airways or Air Arabia, aren't these also state-owned?
  3. Concerning the remark about BOAC further above, is it okay to add defunct airlines to this list? Many undoubted flag carriers like Swissair, Sabena, Interflug, maybe even Pan Am come to mind.
  4. Should a difference be made between Alitalia and Alitalia? Currently, the "state-owned until 2008" comment does not make any sense.

Best regards--FoxyOrange (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I started editing the article massively after an administrator (yes, an administrator!) added a number of unsourced entries. Since then, most of the sources were added by OhanaUnited (talk · contribs) and me. Some of the entries were already there and I simply managed to find the proper references, others were added by me with a companion source. I'm fine with the removals you made. Nonetheless, as a general rule, I try not to remove directly, but first to tag unsourced claims as needing citations. The way I see things, however, the addition of {{citation needed}} tags are optional here, as the entire section is tagged as needing more sources. Regarding the points above:
  1. Don't know about Dragonair, but Cathay Pacific has traditionally been the flag carrier of Hong Kong.
  2. Do you have sources supporting the inclusion of RAK Airways or Air Arabia?
  3. Agree with the BOAC comment, and support removal
  4. Same as above with Alitalia.
It would be fruitful for other editors to drop some thoughts here. I've called for the participation of OhanaUnited in the lines above. Cheers.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Why did you remove the "Vatican" entry? What about the "Shepherd One"? ⇒ "When going on a long journey requiring a plane, there is no specific Vatican plane designated for the Pope. The Vatican does not operate a special jet that is specifically earmarked for the Pope, but instead the Pope uses an Alitalia aircraft which is normally set aside from the passenger operations’ normal schedule."[5] --IIIraute (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Shepherd One is used by the head-of-state of the Vatican and has nothing to do with any air service agreements or such like so is unlikely to be designated a flag carrier. Flag carrier has nothing to do with state aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

What makes an airline a "flag carrier"?

Due to this discussion, I think it's best to also raise the matter here. The lead section defines a flag carrier as an airline that "enjoys preferential rights or privileges accorded by the government for international operations." But further down, in the table, many entries (those for non-state owned companies) are backed by a source that merely proves that the airline is called a flag carrier, but it is nowhere explained what makes it one. I think it should be made clear why an airline meets the "flag carrier" definition, by explicity citing the relevant "rights or privileges". Otherwise, that definition is useless and could be scrapped altogether.

Another idea: Why not move this page to State-owned airlines? Thus, one would get rid of the (obviously somewhat ambiguous) term "flag carrier", could split the list into current/former airlines, the recentism (e.g., why is BOAC not listed) could be overcome, and so on.--FoxyOrange (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that will work. Some ″national airlines″ are not state-owned.--Jetstreamer Talk 16:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I do not see the need for any changes, apart from clarifying the definition of the term in the lead section ⇒ flag carrier ⇒ "an airline that is or was owned by a government, often with the name of the country in its name", like "British Airways", for example. (Definition of flag carrier noun from the Cambridge Business English Dictionary © Cambridge University Press)[6] --IIIraute (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree on the points raised above, specifically: (1) The definition of a flag carrier could/should be refined to be

"An airline that meets at least one of the following criteria: [A] an airline that "enjoys preferential rights or privileges accorded by the government for international operations." [B] current state ownership (including airlines part-owned by governments) [C] former state ownership (including airlines part-owned by governments)"

FoxyOrange notes that "many entries (those for non-state owned companies) are backed by a source that merely proves that the airline is called a flag carrier, but it is nowhere explained what makes it one." This demonstrates an ongoing problem with Wikipedia's Verifiability policy, that verifiability is preferred over truth. Gfcvoice (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, but this is not the right place to discuss the core content policies. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to prove those facts.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

A "flag carrier" is simply an airline that flies regularly scheduled international service from a certain country. At one point in time this was practically synonymous with state owned airlines and ones that were made prominent by regulation. That is not the case today. The term is a bit archaic and unscientific. Many authors will use the term differently. The article should focus on the time that the term was relevant in my opinion. Synchronism (talk) 07:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Air Jamaica vs Caribbean Airlines

@Saltprune416: This set [7] of two edits will be reverted in a week or so unless good reliable sources are provided to support the change that Caribbean Airlines is the flag carrir of Jamaica. The edit is still unsourced and therefore in violation of WP:VERIFY.--Jetstreamer Talk 16:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I provided a source, I can also provide further sources seeing that it does not suit your myopic thought process. Air Jamaica as the former flag carrier of Jamaica was absorbed by Caribbean Airlines, thus fulfilling the role of flag carrier of Jamaica. The Jamaican government has a minority stake in the airline as well further alluding to this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltprune416 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Saltprune416: The source provided says nothing about Caribbean Airlines being Jamaica's flag carrier. It seems that you do not understand what WP:VERIFY is about.--Jetstreamer Talk 16:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The entry has been removed entirely [8]. Do not re-add until a reliable source supports the flag carrier status.--Jetstreamer Talk 02:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Cathay Pacific

Even if Cathay Pacific is Hong Kong's main airline, would it be considered a flag carrier?

First of all, all CX liveries do not have the HK flag but instead are marked with the Swire logo, the company that owns the airline.

Themanilaxperience (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


@Themanilaxperience
Well I hope I am not too late to answer. Thank you for your question. You have pointed out the crux of the whole matter.

The answer is, a main airline is not considered as a flag carrier.

A main airline (or the largest airline) can be a flag carrier concurrently, like China Airlines in ROC, Taiwan, but it can also not to be a flag carrier, like ANA before 2014.

In Hong Kong's case, Cathay Pacific is understood as the main airline in Hong Kong, but not a flag carrier.[9]

For further information, please feel free to ask and I will make additional info and sources as far as I can.

Feber (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2015 (GMT+8)

A reliable source supports the entry. There's nothing more to discuss as this is in complete agreement with WP:VERIFY. You have been reverted by another editor. I kindly suggest you to stop with your WP:POV.--Jetstreamer Talk 02:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Former Flag Carrier to be deleted or clearly indicated as former

Jetstreamer: Your accusation of state violation of laws and international agreements [10] in case of former flag carrier has to stop. Just because an airline was "somehow" a flag carrier decades ago, or is now the largest national airline, i propose renaming this article: "Largest National Airline" and writing a new "Flag carrier" article.

Although you can find links naming airlines "Flag carrier" in the internet, your definition remains POV, as you for example refuse to name a flag carrier of the US.

A single sentence in a dictionary fulfils NOT the Wikipedia guidelines of refs: deleted. The other ref: Please provide the content, with several sentences before an after as well as the headlines, otherwise it would be deleted too. 95.119.44.15 (talk) 03:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why you refer to me in the above comment. I try to keep all the entries in the list supported by a reference, and former flag carriers have been removed (Recently, Cyprus Airways and Estonian Air have been). Please be more specific. We do not need a definition to support each entry but a reliable source backing its inclusion.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Moreover, you addition of the {{POV}} tag at the top of the article deserves an explanation. I'll wait for one within a week or so, otherwise I will remove the tag. As I said above, inclusion is supported by a reliable source. Nothing more is required.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, Jetstreamer, and thank you for your work. You are the main editor of this article (and many more) - and also i have over 10 years Wiki experience, i don't want to become a main editor here. So i have to convince you somehow. Mainly i want to change the definition of "Flag carrier", resulting in a few other changes. My points:

1. Mix-up "reliable sources" with "reliable domain-owner" or "reliable author", even in the case many "reliable" - but not sufficiently reasoned - claims could be found. Some sources look like a Google search: "airline x" + "flag carrier". I already removed the Cambridge dictionary source, seen? It is a good source for spelling and the rough definition, but not for details. It says all former flag carriers are current flag carriers, and so does the relating disputed article sentence.

This explains the {{POV}} tag, as for example minimum one US carrier should therefore included in the list, for example Pan Am.

2. "State owned" meanings differ between countries. For example EU liberalization for example strongly limited state influence even in fully state owned EU airlines to improve competition, resulting in selling/privatization of many state owned airlines since late 1980s. Read the PDF?

3. I think Wikipedia should be "4 dimensional" and normally provide historical info. If clearly indicated, i have no problems including former airlines even in the same list, if a former flag carrier is currently the countries largest, or is otherwise preferred by the related state, or even only seen so by a majority especially in this state: Its a national thing.

4. Article changes: already preparing some definition updates in the next few days, waiting for your reply.

List changes: Renaming the 3rd column to "Details of state ownership" - saving space by including the former state ownership text after a "currently none" or something. Using the then free 4th column to explain other reasons, why an airline is included in the list, like currently and for decades by far largest, or preferential rights.

Thanks. 95.119.44.15 (talk) 07:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Good to hear from you, and I see your point. Let me tell you that I never edited the introduction. Needless to say, you're free to make the necessary changes. On the other hand, the list in its current form includes only those airlines designated as flag carriers by the companion reliables sources (yet I must admit that some entries are still unreferenced, and I'm working hard to source them too.)--Jetstreamer Talk 10:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Had a hard week. And nearly no time in the next days. So i removed most of the tags (they weren't present for a long time). First quick change, with this condition it makes sense. More later. 95.119.44.18 (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Cool. Go ahead.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hungarian Flag Carrief

Shouldn't Solyom Hungarian Airways be listed as Hungary's Flag carrier as it replaced the now defunct Malev Hungarian Airlines. I think Solyom is the newest flag carrier in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.66.87.42 (talk) 11:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not what you think but what you can support with sources, according to WP:VERIFY.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flag carrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

"Flagship carrier"?

I've seen this term in quite a few news reports, though I suspect it's due to confusion, or possibly the use of "flagship" in the sense of "leading" or "premier". Does it have any specific meaning vis-a-vis "flag carrier"? -ProhibitOnions (T) 08:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

No, it doesn't.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Archived references not used in the article

Archived references

--Jetstreamer Talk 13:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Azul for Brazil?

Shouldn’t Azul be mentioned as Brazil’s flag career, as they called themselves on the flag livery jet? Or was it just a marketing gimmick? I know they are relatively small, but as TAM merged with LAN and became Chile based LATAM, technically Azul seems to be the flag carrier as the largest Brazilian based and owned airline...?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.205.242.141 (talk • contribs)

An aircraft livery including the flag of any country has nothing to do with that airline being the flag carrier of that country.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Brazil hasn't a flag carrier.

Adria Airways = defunct?

Since Adria Airways has ceased operations as of September 30th 2019[1] shall it be removed from this list even though it was the flag carrier of its respective country up until that point? Luka0188 (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you can remove it.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Adria Airways files for bankruptcy of the company". 2019-09-30.

pictures with local aerobatic teams to emphasise the national origin

Yesterday, I was browsing inflight A330 pictures and stumbled upon pictures with the national aerobatic team. I though it was a great illustration of the national origin of a Flag Carrier, and added them there, replacing the rather bland previous MEA picture. Only the Flag carrier could be accompanied by the local AF Patrol.

I thought it was an improvement to the article (maybe only one could be kept, but both were dynamic), but @Jetstreamer: (apparently the main editor here, thanks) reverted it stating "That does emphasise nothing". I disagree, and more opinions would be welcome. What does other editors think of the illustrations?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Marc Lacoste: I agree that one could be kept but, IMHO, adding images of aircraft from flag carriers seconded by military aircraft do not add clarity to the article but confusion. You claimed "Only the Flag carrier could be accompanied by the local AF Patrol". I do not know why is it so or even if it this true at all. One clean image of a flag carrier's aircraft, whatever it be (the MEA image can be replaced at any time), is the better choice here (I think). I don't understand the comment regarding my contributions to the article either; maybe nobody is interested in this particular page as I am.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed reply. I understand adding a display team could confuse a bit the message, I was struck by the obvious patriotism in both the flag carrier and the display team... It's not always the case (eg) but most often... I'm thankful for your dedication maintaining this article, it's not an easy task.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

United Arab Emirates

@Jetstreamer: What is your issue with adding a note specifying that Emirates (and Etihad) are not really national flag carriers? They are both owned by emirates and not by the country as a whole, which I see no issue including in the notes column of the table, after all, isn't that the whole point of the notes column? Etihad is the only airline that is the "flag carrier" of the UAE, but it is also the flag carrier of Abu Dubai. Emirates is the flag carrier of Dubai and not of the UAE, but can be considered one. I understand the UAE is the country, but emirates and other regions within a country can have flag carriers too to an extent, but either way, it doesn't hurt including it in the notes column. And as a side note, I did not restore exactly the same information.– BrandonXLF (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

No sources support Emirates being the flag carrier of Dubai. The current, sourced version of the entry [11] supports both airlines as flag carriers for the UAE, not for any of the member states.--Jetstreamer Talk 01:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Jetstreamer, fair enough. It seems that there is no clear answer. But I think it's important to specify that the airlines are owned on a regional level rather than a national level. So how would you be with adding the owners of the airlines? For example:
... Notes
... Owned by the Government of Dubai through the Investment Corporation of Dubai.
... Owned by the Government of Abu Dhabi.[1]
– BrandonXLF (talk) 05:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not against your change, it's just that it needs to be properly sourced. The proposal you added above does no have a source for the first entry, can you add one please? Separately, you don't need to ping me, I'm watchlisting this article. Cheers.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Does [12] work? – BrandonXLF (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2019-11-18/etihad-slightly-ahead-plan-return-profitability
It does if it is the newest source that can be found.--Jetstreamer Talk 02:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
It's from November 18th of this year, so I think it is. It seems like the newest one I can find. I'll implement these new changes as you seem to be fine with them with the sources. – BrandonXLF (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Please, proceed.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Gulf Air

According to the Gulf Air page, Gulf Air is now Bahrain's flag carrier since Oman withdrew from the joint venture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.162.150 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Finnair from Finland

Classic example isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.220.23 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Alitalia renationalization

The Italian government has recently taken over Alitalia again as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on air travel.[1] Would like to request if the corresponding entry on the table can be edited to reflect this as such. Thanks.

Example (no references used):

 Italy Alitalia State-owned Previously state-owned until 2008, and indirectly controlled through a state-owned company since 2013. Was previously the minority (19.48%).

—Mr. Lechkar (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Italy to take full control of Alitalia as virus hits sale plan - report". Reuters. 15 March 2020. Retrieved 4 September 2020.

Is Virgin Australian flag carrier?

Australian flag carrier is only QANTAS, but there is note that VIRGIN IS FLAG CARRIER. Virgin can't be national FLAG CARRIER. Social25062 (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The supporting source says otherwise.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flag_carrier/Archive_1&oldid=1256361864"