Jump to content

Talk:United Airlines/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Poor English grammer and speling in Destinations ➡ Route Network

The last sentence regarding the JFK/EWR "slot swat" needs much work. --66.87.119.93 (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

United receiving A319s from Spirit

United currently has 25 A319s on order from China Southern, but Spirit is retiring their A319 aircraft, and planespotters.net[1] and some other sites are reporting that United will pick up some of those aircraft (bringing total A319 orders to 42). However, I did not make this change on the fleet table because I cannot find a reputable article or reference that will confirm these orders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.118.126 (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Planespotters.net is not a reliable source. Please wait until there is a announcement from Airbus or United regarding this. Citydude1017 (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Simplified the fleet selection

United Airlines Fleet used to be a main article, but have been redirect to the airline article in 2013. Would it be better to simplified the fleet selection, and redirect the details to a new main article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chunhim lai (talk • contribs) 15:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the 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 15:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Confusion in number of destinations

"United Airlines operates to 235 destinations and 138 international destinations...". This is ambiguous. Is it 235 domestic destinations ? Rcbutcher (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2017

In the list of accidents and incidents for United Airlines, change "Fight 3411" to "Flight 3411" 165.134.140.73 (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Done Tompop888 (talk) (contribs) 17:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2017

( in the "Controversy" section )

"United breaks guitars" hit

In 2008, singer Dave Caroll was flying United and his $3500 guitar was damaged. After 9 months trying to get compensation, Dave posted on YouTube [2] a song called "United breaks guitars". It got more than 16 million views. It became also famous among marketers as a perfect example of what not-to-do with customers, and how damaging a bad customer service can be. J4343 (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry not included - Hardly notable for inclusion and poor customer service is not really a controversy. MilborneOne (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Note that there is an article, United Breaks Guitars, with sources for the significance of this incident. It really should be mentioned here.64.105.98.115 (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry it really is not that significant to the airline, if we added a bit about every annoyed customer in the ninety year history it would be a really big article, but it would go against WP:WEIGHT NOTNEWS and probably a lot of others in the alphabet soup. MilborneOne (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Really weird to me that this isn't referenced. As noted above the song has its own wikipedia page.

References

  1. ^ https://www.planespotters.net/production-list/search?fleet=United-Airlines&manufacturer=Airbus&type=A319&fleetStatus=future
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGc4zOqozo

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2017

Spelling error on "Vietnamese" under Controversy subheading Change "vietamese" to "vietnamese" Insert space between Dr. and David 74.108.34.108 (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 22:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Former hub: Heathrow Airport (London)?

http://articles.latimes.com/1990-10-24/business/fi-2900_1_united-airlines

NEW YORK — In another step in its emergence as a global carrier, United Airlines announced Tuesday that it has agreed to purchase the London routes of troubled Pan American World Airways.

The transaction, worth $400 million, will give United gateways to London from five U.S. cities: Los Angeles, New York, Washington, San Francisco and Seattle. From London, United will pick up Pan Am routes to a half-dozen European cities....

United also will obtain Pan Am's routes from London to Amsterdam, Berlin, Brussels, Oslo, Helsinki, Finland, and the German cities of Hamburg and Munich.

The excerpt speaks for itself. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Share Price

The share price dropped massively after the airline decided to fly the unfriendly skies. Where would be the correct place to put this information? Mobile mundo (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The share price is higher than it was last week, and about 1% down on the day. This is not a long term, massive, or even significant fall. The relevant controversy would be the only suitable place. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, I dunno. Fortune has "United Airlines Stock Drops $1.4 Billion After Passenger-Removal Controversy" (article here). Apparently there was some bounceback later on Tuesday April 12. Still, even the 1.1% that Marketwatch gives on the day is a quarter of a billion dollars. Dropping $250,000,000 is not unusual if a corporation announces diminished earnings or there's market headwinds or something. It might be considered a lot for an incident involving one customer. Herostratus (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree the incident had an effect on the share price. I think think there was an 8% fall anticipated on the futures market, and around 4.5% at the opening. For this reason I think it's relevant, however the only place it belongs is in the same paragraph as the incident. In the larger picture, even over the last week, a 1% drop over a day is barely a wobble in the share price. I mean, even after the fall the company is worth hundreds of millions more than it was last week. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2017


In United Airlines#Controversies, on the last two sentences, could somebody add a space between reference 232 and "The" in "The passenger was identified as David Dao, a Vietnamese-American doctor."? 173.73.227.128 (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Done Tompop888 (talk) (contribs) 16:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

United Airlines Violence

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/11/asia/united-passenger-dragged-off-china-reaction/ ON Monday April 10th (CNN)A public relations disaster for United Airlines is transforming into an international incident in one of its most important markets. Video of a passenger being dragged off a Chicago-Louisville flight, bloodying his nose and leaving him dazed in the process, has gone viral online in China, attracting tens of thousands of outraged posts. The man, who has not yet been identified, was overheard saying he was being profiled for being Chinese, a passenger told CNN, before police officers forcibly removed him from his seat on the overbooked flight.

If you think something should be added then please go to the United Airlines Flight 3411 article and suggest it on the talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I removed a reference to the incident from the intro, its a minor event in the history of a large company that have existed for over 90 years. It simply should not be in the overview of the article. Ulflarsen (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2017

In the wikipedia article about United Airlines, near the beginning of the article is this:

In April 2017 a video of a doctor being forcibly removed from a United Airlines plane and violently attacked by the company's employees received worldwide media coverage and caused a significant backlash against the company;

This is not true in several regards. Stating the passenger was violently attacked is open to interpretation and all the details have yet to emerge. United indicates that proper protocol was followed....the passenger feels he was attacked. It would be more factual (and less emotional) to say that the passenger was forcibly removed. But even more glaring is the statement that the removal was conducted by the company's employees. This is not true. The passenger was forcibly removed by Chicago Department of Aviation security officers. This is correctly stated later in the article. Rtb2425 (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP (talk • contribs) 19:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is more like marketing material for United

Please edit the content so that it is actual content not marketing material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.157.84.67 (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry this is a big article you need to give us a clue to what you think is "marketing material". MilborneOne (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with 213.157.84.67. The worst offending section is the cabin section. It would be far more encyclopedic to have more history and not this section. However, many of the airline articles are like that as far as marketing. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It's a lot less like marketing material now, with recent addition of the "Controversies" section - which is mostly from the complaining passengers' point of view: as if to say cold, heartless, uncompromising money-grubbing airline! --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

United kills dogs

I just came across this article from five years ago: http://dogtime.com/dog-health/general/16295-second-dog-dies-during-united-airlines-flight is it worth bunging into the article now, or have they had a bad enough week anyway? 2.31.190.99 (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


NPOV dispute

Tagged as advertising promotion.

Violates WP:NPOV.

Productive discussion then abruptly interrupted and changes reverted.

Therefore needs further discussion on talk page as to how to improve article.

So the article does not violate WP:NPOV.

And so the article does not function as an advertisement. Sagecandor (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry you need to explain what you dont like and get some discussion, not hack away at stuff you dont like, please explain yourself first rather then be disruptive, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Was doing in good faith, above, thanks. Sagecandor (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Asia no sources

Restored with sources. epicgenius (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

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

On January 29, 2016, United Airlines introduced a daily nonstop service from San Francisco to Singapore operated with a Boeing 787, from June 1, 2016, making it the first U.S. airline to offer nonstop services from the United States to Southeast Asia. The eastbound journey will take 15 hours 30 minutes and 16 hours 20 minutes westbound. With the introduction of the nonstop service, previous service from Singapore Changi Airport to Tokyo Narita has been terminated. Star Alliance partner Singapore Airlines, on October 23, 2016 started a daily nonstop service to San Francisco. This service is operated with an Airbus A350-900.

No sources.

Moved to talk page. Sagecandor (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My sincere thanks to Epicgenius for the research. Sagecandor (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Other facilities no sources

Restored with source that adequately explains all three subsidiaries. epicgenius (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

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

UAL, United Airline's parent company prior to its merger with Continental Airlines, previously held majority ownership stakes in several major travel and leisure companies. UAL's former subsidiaries include international hotel chains Westin Hotels and Resorts and Hilton Hotels Corporation as well as global car rental company Hertz. UAL sold or spun off most of its assets not related to its core airline operations during the 1980s and '90s.

No sources.

Moved to talk page. Sagecandor (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Many many thanks to Epicgenius for the due diligence research. Sagecandor (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Brand image no sources

The Saul Bass livery was updated in 1988 to feature larger lettering on the fuselage, with the rainbow stripes on the side moved down to accommodate the new space.[citation needed]

The next livery update came in the early 1990s: the CKS Group-designed "Battleship", a grey fuselage with dark blue underbelly and engines, with blue stripes on the vertical stabilizer, a smaller "tulip" on the vertical stabilizer. A smaller, more refined version of the rainbow stripes from the previous livery were incorporated as well. This livery debuted on January 11, 1993. In 2004, the Pentagram-developed "Rising Blue" livery featured a white and lighter blue fuselage, along with a cropped version of the tulip on the tail.

In 2010, the newly merged United adopted Continental Airlines' 1991 livery scheme, which included the Continental globe symbol. The current United livery consists of a white upper fuselage, with a gold globe on a blue tailfin, and a gray underbelly. All mainline aircraft are now painted in this livery, save for the airframes listed in special liveries below, which include two retro liveries. Boeing 787 Dreamliners use a modified version of the livery, with a wavy gold stripe painted along both sides of the fuselage.

No sources.

Moved to talk page. Sagecandor (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't find reliable sources on this, only blogs and forum posts, so I changed the header to "Original brand image." Pinging WikiProject Airlines. epicgenius (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Former hubs - no sources

The airport was officially dehubbed on June 5, 2014.[citation needed] Other reasons for the dehubbing include the close proximity of the larger hubs of Chicago-O'Hare, Washington-Dulles and Newark, which were bigger hubs, and the lack of any flights out of North America.[citation needed]

No sources.

Sat in article with no sources. For years.

Moved to talk page. Sagecandor (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Not an actual requirement - how long have they been challenged with fact tags ? MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to try to do some research yourself. Sagecandor (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Nope doesnt work like that you need to tag unreferenced items or raise them here not just delete stuff. MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Nope per WP:BURDEN burden is on person who wants to add in unsourced material. Sagecandor (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Some of this stuff has been in the article for a long time without a challenge it would be reasonable to tag it first, it is unlikely to be seen or looked at if you delete it all. MilborneOne (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
You're looking at it now. Feel free to do the research yourself. Sagecandor (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Its a shame but this will be archived away soon and wont be looked at by anybody, if you wanted it to be looked at then it should have been fact tagged. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Its a shame but this all this energy you could have spent on research. Sagecandor (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Please take care personal attacks on other editors will not end well. MilborneOne (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Please take care and assume good faith. Was NOT meant as anything other than a friendly suggestion to source material here on the talk page and work on research here and then add back to article. Nothing more. Nothing less. Sagecandor (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the proximity of other hubs was a determining factor. epicgenius (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad this junk cruft and unsourced bits was not left in the article any longer. Sagecandor (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Sponsorships - no sources

United also flies the U.S. Olympic Team, D.C. United, Denver Broncos, Golden State Warriors, Kansas City Royals, Kansas City Chiefs, Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, Los Angeles Chargers, Miami Marlins, San Francisco 49ers, SF Giants, San Jose Earthquakes, San Jose Sharks, Sporting KC, Washington Mystics, Washington Redskins and Washington Wizards. The Blackhawks and Bulls play their games in the United Center, which the airline holds the naming rights to until 2033.[citation needed]

The Houston Rockets had used them as their airline sponsor; they signed a deal with Southwest in 2015.[citation needed]

No sources.

Moved to talk page. Sagecandor (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Why - you need to tag it first and give others the chance to find sources - deleting it is not the normaly way to deal with unreferenced. MilborneOne (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Sat in the article for years with no sources. Sagecandor (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Not an actual requirement - how long have they been challenged with fact tags ? MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Best to rely upon site policies of WP:BURDEN. Sagecandor (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Restored first paragraph with sources. epicgenius (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much ! Sagecandor (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Peer review again?/United Airlines Flight 3411 incident

This article seems to me to have too much the look and feel of a press release from its subject's PR department. Controversies surrounding its recent conduct towards passengers are buried in the company's chronology section; given the gravity of some of these (most recently the videotaped dragging offplane of an Asian, allegedly a doctor en route to work his next shift, from Flight 3411 on 9 April 2017) and other incidents of apparent racial/ethnic profiling, I believe it would be appropriate to have a section separate from the general chronology, probably to be called "Controversies." But in any case a peer review would seem to be called for here, pending which the usual warning of possible bias might reasonably be posted at the head of this article. It may be beyond Wikipedia's brief to be a vehicle for reporting published results of investigative journalism as such, but as one who has written for other (dead tree) encyclopedias I believe that neither should this or any other encyclopedia be a party to obfuscating unpleasant realities when they are both relevant and important to a thorough and nuanced understanding of the subject.Da Prof (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)da Prof

  • We are an encyclopedia, not a news aggregator. I just read the article in the Washington Post, and what happened to those passengers is awful, but whether that individual event deserves mention, and how much detail should be cited, is a matter of editorial consensus. It's in there right now, in a paragraph--that there's not more, well, discuss it here, but that doesn't mean it's a PR piece. Please. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • BTW, I foresee a total PR nightmare, and so it is entirely possible that there are repercussions, but that will become clear in the following days. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems odd that folks like User:VikingDevil53 are scrubbing this from the history section of the page even if its on the homepage of NYT and CNN right now. In the interests of not starting a revert war, I'm just going to point out that in my humble opinion, it is obviously news worthy. cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

And very much relevant to the history of this airline. cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I definitely understand why people think something newsworthy would be a valid part of the history but it really is a slippery slope. First, I think it's important to mention that this airline has had incidents where people have died on their planes. I think rightly so that those are more significant and that's why they are highlighted by their flight numbers in the accidents and incidents section of the page (and not included in the history section with exception to 9/11 for obvious reasons). Adding a note because of this incident in the history portion I think undervalues incidents where people died. In addition, where do you stop on how one passenger was treated. Do you include the incident where a handicapped passenger was left on a plane for hours, when a minor was left by themselves, or a plane stuck on a tarmac for nine hours? If you let this one incident through, where is the fine line of what is include and what isn't? As someone mentioned about, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news aggregator. User:VikingDevil53 (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Other people have died, but they weren't killed at the request of United. United's request led directly to this passenger's concussion, broken ribs, teeth being knocked out, etc. This seems quite noteworthy. Mkcmkc (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi protected article request

Please can the following be added to the brand image section "United Airlines puts the hospital in hospitality" with a suitable reference to the doctor that was assaulted on Sunday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.36.193.173 (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done as you have not provided that reference. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 23:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2017

Add the scorpion sting incident that occurred on April 13th to the "controversy over passenger treatment" section. Ramsay7 (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Note really noteworthy to include. MilborneOne (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi protected edit request - April 13th 2017

Add information on scorpion incident that occurred on united flight from Houston to Calgary on April 13th to the "controversy over passenger treatement" section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramsay7 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

See above MilborneOne (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Environmental efforts

We have a large section about the introduction of Electronic Flight Books in the Environment efforts section but as this feature is standard on all new aircraft it is not that unusual. Tempted to remove it unless anybody has a reference that United were the first to introduce them. MilborneOne (talk) 06:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

name of passenger maltreatment section

"Controversy over passenger treatment", heh. "Controversy" is when there's reasonable disagreement. I'm not seeing it here:

  • REASONABLE PERSON 1: Gee, they called that brain-damaged combat vet a "retard" and kicked his service dog. I'm against that!
  • REASONABLE PERSON 2: Well, I think it's great! Nobody made him volunteer to serve his country in combat. He chose to and he should face the consequences!
  • REASONABLE PERSON 1: I don't think they should have had that 69 year old doctor assaulted to the point that he was knocked out and so were two of his teeth.
  • REASONABLE PERSON 2: I can't agree. In my last job, that was pretty much standard customer service. Granted, my last job was working for Pol Pot.
  • REASONABLE PERSON 1: They wouldn't give that woman an unopened Coke, but they did to the guy sitting next to her. That's wrong.
  • REASONABLE PERSON 2: There's nothing "wrong" with it. She was wearing a headscarf!

Generally speaking, in my business, "client will require facial reconstruction" is considered a suboptimal outcome (even worse than "product not delivered on time"). We don't sit around and discuss whether its suboptimal or not. It's assumed. So where's the "controversy"?

Rename section to be accurate. I suggest "Passenger mistreatment" since that's what the subject is about. But at any rate, no "controvesy" please. Herostratus (talk) 03:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

That seems to be the right tone to set, at least. Things like one flight crew's objection to leggings, for instance, ought not to be presented as unqualified mistreatment. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 05:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I have removed all the recent additions that have been piled on since the latest issues, these were not considered to be noteworthy before the recent incident. MilborneOne (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
It appears that they have all been re-added - why? they were not noteworthy for incluson before 3511 happened and clearly faily WP:WEIGHT. MilborneOne (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Honeymooners headed to Costa Rica

I removed this one-sided account, but I don't want it permanently deleted - it can be fixed:

  • On April 15, 2017, almost a week after the Flight 3411 incident, Michael Hohl and Amber Maxwell, an engaged bride and groom who were flying Flight 1737 from Houston, Texas to Liberia, Costa Rica, were ejected from a half-full flight with many empty rows after they moved up a row when they saw a man sleeping on their seats.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.khou.com/news/local/bride-and-groom-booted-off-united-flight-in-houston/431644313|title=Bride and groom booted off United flight in Houston|author=Brandi Smith & Hannah Lawson|work=KHOU|date=April 17, 2017|accessdate=April 17, 2017}}</ref>

Reading the KHOU account, we see that we are only reading one side of the story - that of the passengers, who said all they did was move up (to avoid waking the man who was himself out of his proper seat), and there was plenty of room anyway. The other side is that of the airline, who said that they were told repeatedly to move back.

We also don't hear anything about whether the sleeping guy was asked by airline personnel to move, or what. (I would have told the stewardess the moment she asked for my ticket that there's someone sleeping in our seats - as I graciously stood up and began to move. I can't understand how this is a problem anything like the other ones.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Six photos in "Cabin" section

Overkill.

United_Airlines#Cabin

Seems like advertising for the luxurious lush seating, come look at what we have here, etc.

Should be aggressively trimmed down to not function as form of promotion.

Text paragraph form can textually describe the material in an in-text format in the text itself.

Sagecandor (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Multiple issues

Article needs much referencing improvements.

Unsourced info all over the article in a cavalier fashion.

Article appears advertorial.

Tone and structure and layout and overall style appears to be for purposes of advertisement and promotion.

Article violates WP:NPOV.

Intro violates WP:LEAD, does not function as an adequate summary of the entire article. Needs to be expanded.

Sagecandor (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: I've fixed the lead based on other articles about American mainline carriers. I don't know how it promotes anything, though: details about the types of cabins can also be found in articles like American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and Virgin America (a good article). I agree that a lot of information is unsourced, but we can add {{citation needed}}. epicgenius (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the improvements, lots of work still needed to address unencylopedic promotional tone throughout the article. Sagecandor (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
@Sagecandor: Could you add some examples? I don't think the description of the cabin is promotional, since it's describing in a matter-of-fact fashion. It may be very detailed, but still applies by NPOV. Other than that, I can't find any instances of blatant advertising. epicgenius (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Like for example we don't need all those fair use logos advertising the company on the page. Sagecandor (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
You're right, they are overkill, but they aren't exactly advertising since they can't potentially help profit the company in some way (the logos are outdated). epicgenius (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
They go to the overall unencyclopedic tone of non neutral promotion of the image of the company. Sagecandor (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, so you can remove the files yourself if you believe it is advertising. epicgenius (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, did that. Sagecandor (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Restored - Nothing wrong with showing historic logos clearly not advertising. It may be better to list what you dont like here so it can be discussed and changes agreed before randomly hacking away at the article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Overkill. Agreed on talk page as overkill. Advertising and promotion. Violates WP:NPOV. Purpose of article is NOT to advertise logos of company all over the page. Restrict to one logo. Sagecandor (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
And edit warring is not the best way to improve this article - please discuss and get agreement first. A five minute discussion between two editors is not consensus - and really cant understand where this advertising bit comes from you need to be clearer about what you are trying to do. MilborneOne (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Please do not disruptively override consensus to add advertising back into the article and violate WP:NPOV. Sagecandor (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry but you need to understand consensus and NPOV and clearly need to explain why you think old logos are advertising. MilborneOne (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed between both parties above as "overkill". I agree it is "overkill". Sagecandor (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Appreciate you are doing this in good faith but consensus is not an agreement between two parties, lots of others here that may have opinions. No rush take your time, explain what you dont like and it can be discussed. MilborneOne (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  1. Overkill.
  2. Violates fair use.
  3. Should be restricted to one logo in the infobox only.
  4. Article should NOT function as purpose to promote the logo and therefore the brand of the company.
  5. Agree with Epicgenius that so many logos is "overkill", as noted, above.

Sagecandor (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: While they may be overkill, I also agree with MilborneOne that the logos may also have historic value. I think WikiProject Aviation is the best source to ask since neither of us are that familiar with WP:AVIATION guidelines regarding historic logos. epicgenius (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
A logo is a company's brand. We should not give them free promotional advertising for their brand. That violates WP:NPOV. Sagecandor (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
As most company articles have a logo then you need to raise this is an issue at a higher level, as it is standard practice it clearly doesnt violate NPOV or have anything to do with advertising or all logos on wikipedia would have been deleted a long time ago. MilborneOne (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
That said your only argument with merit is probably the fair use one. MilborneOne (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, "a logo". One. Not promoting all of them. We can have one logo on the page. One. Sagecandor (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm Oh brother! I can't believe that having a historical logo with the tulip on it (which they don't even use anymore after having merged with Continental) is somehow giving them "free promotional advertising for their brand." Really? What's wrong with having their beautiful old tulip logo on this article? I can't believe I've been dragged out of retirement from WP for something as petty as this. —Compdude123 20:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
The logos do have historical significance. Since there is an article, History of United Airlines, would anyone have a problem with moving the gallery to that article?--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Would seem to be reasonable. MilborneOne (talk) 06:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Reasonable solution, thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

United Breaks Guitars?

Surprised this isn't here. Every time I see the United Logo I start humming that tune.

Added - this is the source (I don't know how to add) http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-tuesday-edition-1.4065793/united-breaks-guitars-guy-says-airline-shows-lack-of-compassion-in-wake-of-latest-pr-disaster-1.4065795 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.165.22 (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Still notable all these years later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.39.129.19 (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

accidents and incidents are lower than reality

All airlines articles should mention whether or not (usually NOT it seems!!) their accidents and incidents includes their merged entities. This underestimates the combined airline's accidents to the casual learner making these much larger combined entities seem safer than they are. Furthermore by not providing a link, continental's murderous past (for instance) remains hidden. while united's is underestimated. not to speak of the unfathomable bloodshed at northwestern etc...

Please include link to the lesser airline's accidents and also the accident rate of the the take over subject and combined accidents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.167.209.144 (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on United Airlines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi Protected Edit Request on May 21, 2017

Can someone under the destinations heading and under the subheading Africa add that United is resuming service to Africa with new service to Johannesburg from Newark on September 30, 2017. Here is the source: https://www.kkvaluesnj.com/united-airlines-news. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The source you have provided isn't reliable. st170e 16:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Launch citations

Hi! I was wondering if anyone would be able to fill in citations for details such as United Airlines being a launch customer for certain planes. Thanks! @Rob talk 00:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on United Airlines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

== Lack of Neutrality ==con

The inclusion of a section section on "controversies" is not in line with the overall neutrality of Wikipedia. Most of the entries are social media stories and their inclusion seems designed to influence opinion on the overall page. No other airline has this section despite similar "controversies". This is not neutral. Dmarr1 (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

All of the entries here are well sourced to reliable secondary sources, and form a significant part of the publicity that United has received. Including them all together at once is much more neutral than including them interspersed in the airline's history. If other airlines have a similar number of controversies and scandals that have had comparable coverage in secondary sources feel free to edit those pages and include that, otherwise this argument boils down to WP:OTHERCONTENT. PGWG (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

HIstory of United through Continental

There is a warning at the top of the article about being like an advertisement. We, in Wikipedia, should be independent and objective and not let an article become like an ad. I realize this topic is controversial, which is why I am presenting it in the talk page before any editing. I won't edit it for quite a while to allow public input.

To reach this objective, there should be a balance between the history of the United brand name and the airline essentially being Continental Airlines using the United name. United is using Continental's operating certificate. United is using Continental livery/paint scheme and logo. United is using Continental management.

A compromise is to state in the beginning of the history of the Continental link then go into great detail about the early United name history in the 1930's and 1940's. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

On first thought, I see United as having 3 origins. 1. Varney and United Airlines, 2. Varney and Continental, 3. Texas International and Continental. Vanguard10 (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

JFK hub

United did have a hub at JFK. 199.80.250.132 (talk)

Care to provide a reliable source specifically stating that United had a hub at JFK?? Unless if you can find a source stating so, it will be considered vandalism and edits will be reverted. Also, T9 (then T7) was opened as the United-Delta terminal in 1959 (later the United-Braniff terminal until Braniff's bankruptcy in 1982), and there was no hub & spoke system until deregulation. 1.128.96.221 (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

NONSTOP FOREIGN FLIGHTS

Theoretically you could use any cutoff for the table (5000 or 6000 or even 7000 miles The LAX-SYD is a good cutoff because it was established by PanAm.

miles

  • 8,440 San Francisco, CA Singapore, Singapore
  • 8,063 Newark, NJ Hong Kong, Hong Kong
  • 7,919 Los Angeles, CA Melbourne, Australia
  • 7,806 Newark, NJ Mumbai, India
  • 7,793 Chicago, IL Hong Kong, Hong Kong
  • 7,487 Los Angeles, CA Sydney, Australia
  • ===
  • 7,422 San Francisco, CA Tel Aviv, Israel
  • 7,417 San Francisco, CA Sydney, Australia
  • 7,384 Newark, NJ Shanghai, China
  • 7,324 Newark, NJ Delhi, India
  • 7,057 Chicago, IL Shanghai, China
  • 6,927 San Francisco, CA Hong Kong, Hong Kong
  • 6,921 Washington, DC Beijing, China
  • 6,871 San Francisco, CA Chengdu, China
  • 6,831 Newark, NJ Beijing, China
  • 6,753 Washington, DC Tokyo, Japan
  • 6,732 Newark, NJ Tokyo, Japan
  • 6,643 Houston, TX Tokyo, Japan
  • 6,579 Chicago, IL Beijing, China
  • 6,489 San Francisco, CA Xi'an, China
  • 6,485 Los Angeles, CA Shanghai, China
  • 6,469 San Francisco, CA Taipei, Taiwan
  • 6,274 Chicago, IL Tokyo, Japan
  • 6,252 San Francisco, CA Hangzhou, China
  • 6,151 San Francisco, CA Shanghai, China
  • 5,913 San Francisco, CA Beijing, China
  • 5,879 San Francisco, CA Munich, Germany
  • 5,799 Denver, CO Tokyo, Japan
  • 5,699 San Francisco, CA Frankfurt, Germany
  • 5,692 Newark, NJ Tel Aviv, Israel
  • 5,659 San Francisco, CA Seoul, South Korea
  • 5,583 San Francisco, CA Paris, France
  • 5,456 Los Angeles, CA London, United Kingdom
  • 5,451 Los Angeles, CA Tokyo, Japan
  • 5,417 Houston, TX Munich, Germany
  • 5,413 San Francisco, CA Osaka, Japan
  • 5,367 San Francisco, CA London, United Kingdom
  • 5,233 Houston, TX Frankfurt, Germany
  • 5,222 Chicago, IL Sao Paulo, Brazil
  • 5,142 San Francisco, CA Tokyo, Japan
  • 5,062 Houston, TX Ezeiza, Argentina
  • 5,016 Houston, TX Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
  • 5,012 Houston, TX Amsterdam, Netherlands

Pacomartin (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

And the point of this would be what, exactly? As you mentioned Sydney, UA is just one of four airlines that operate non-stop between LAX and SYD - two Australian and two American; two other airlines operate SYD - DFW, which is more than a thousand miles further, and another operates SYD - YVR, also further. YSSYguy (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


I don't think there is any point in 25 routes. But United is very proud of having the three longest flights of US Carriers.

Longest non-stop flights

On 1 June 2016, United launched nonstop flights between San Francisco and Singapore.[1] On 1 June 2017, United announced its Los Angeles/Singapore nonstop service.[2] On 7 September 2017, United announced that it will begin daily, nonstop service between Houston and Sydney on 18 January 2018. With this addition United flies the three longest flights by a U.S. carrier.[3]

Rank Distance USA Foreign Flight
number		 Aircraft
1 8,770 mi (7,621 nmi; 14,114 km) Los Angeles Singapore UA 37 Boeing 787-9
2 8,596 mi (7,470 nmi; 13,834 km) Houston Sydney UA 101
3 8,447 mi (7,340 nmi; 13,594 km) San Francisco Singapore UA 1

Pacomartin (talk) 13:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "UA 1: San Francisco - Singapore Takes Flight". United Airlines. 1 June 2016. Retrieved 14 February 2018.
  2. ^ "United Airlines Announces Nonstop Service Between Los Angeles and Singapore". United Airlines. 1 June 2017. Retrieved 14 February 2018.
  3. ^ "United Airlines Strengthens Commitment to Houston with Nonstop Service Between Houston and Sydney". United Airlines. 7 September 2017. Retrieved 14 February 2018.

I am happy to see that Singapore is not called Singapore, Singapore, which is an American-only way of reference. I recommend that there be reconsideration of the column labelled as "foreign". Vanguard10 (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Vanguard10: See my first attempt at wording to address the latter; IAH, SFO, and LAX are UA hubs whereas SYD and SIN are not. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Controversies and customer service problems

It is clear we need to cover any important criticism but balanced against the 90 years history of the airline this section can be culled to about two entries of any importance, the rest is just tabloid non-encyclopedic trivia. We also need to consider Recentism and Balance when weighed against the 143 million passengers that were carried that presumably didnt complain or have an issue. Just looking for thoughts rather than just edit the trivia away, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Adverse publicity seems to generate more adverse publicity and it's getting out of hand in my opinion. The section makes United look like the worst airline in the world. Too much weight. YSSYguy (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Airlines lose or mis-send luggage all the time. It happening to pets once in a while like recent can't be a isolated instance. From the summer of 1996 to early 2002 I was an elite Northwest Airlines Frequent Flyer who did nearly 500,000 flight miles during that time. My bags were mishandled once (And it was KLM in Amsterdam who codeshared with NW who didn't send the luggage to Warsaw like they were supposed to not NW) and NW supposedly didn't have a good reputation. They did fine with me for all those flights covering the most part of six years. Only once did I not get a first class upgrade....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, I agree with WilliamJE suggestion and tweaked accordingly. MilborneOne (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
There should be something about the french bull dog puppy. It's an exploding issue with lots of references, protests, public officials (state and federal), and celebrities commenting on it.
Why, wikipedia is not a tabloid. MilborneOne (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I generally agree with the view that Wikipedia is not a tabloid. However, in the dead dog in the overhead (bull dog puppy), there may be merit in inclusion for the following reasons.

  • extensive worldwide coverage
  • resulted in the next United Airlines dog being transported by non-stop long range private jet (Bombardier Global Express) charter from Japan to Wichita, Kansas, at a cost of around a quarter of a million dollars as well as a EWR-STL United flight making an emergency landing in CAK to drop off a dog bound for CAK that was mistakenly loaded to the flight. The dog flown from Japan was mistakenly transported there instead of on a domestic US flight. The dead dog resulted in at least two huge reactions to prevent another highly publicized dog death.
  • resulted in permanent change to pet policy, including a new red tag to alert flight attendants of pets in the cabin and legislation in the U.S. Senate introduced by Senator Kennedy banning animal carriage in overhead compartments. Wow!

Point 3 makes it especially notable, but added to that #1 and, to some extent, #2. Vanguard10 (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2018/03/15/senator-plans-file-bill-prohibiting-airlines-from-putting-pets-overhead-bins/z0hwvXyN8c78vlWEJBAPkJ/story.html Senator plans to file bill prohibiting airlines from putting pets in overhead bins

https://cohen.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/donovan-cohen-introduce-bipartisan-bill-banning-pets-overhead Donovan, Cohen Introduce Bipartisan Bill Banning Pets from Overhead Compartments Measure is in response to a dog's death on a United Airlines flight

Washington, DC – March 15, 2018….Congressman Dan Donovan (NY-11) today introduced legislation banning dogs from overhead compartments after Kokito, a French bulldog, died on a United Airlines flight. Kokito’s owner says a flight attendant required her to put her 10-month old dog in the overhead compartment and he did not survive the flight. Congressman Steve Cohen (TN-9) is the lead Democratic cosponsor on the legislation....The bill, titled the PETS (Planes Ensuring Total Safety) Act, will require the Federal Aviation Administration to ban pets from flying in overhead compartments and institute fines on airlines that fail to comply with the law. Donovan’s PETS Act already has a Senate companion, called the WOOFF Act, after Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) agreed to carry the proposal in his chamber

http://wgntv.com/2018/03/15/united-airlines-to-use-special-tags-for-pet-carriers-after-dog-death/ United Airlines to use special tags for pet carriers after dog death CHICAGO — United Airlines plans to issue bright colored bag tags to people traveling with pets to prevent animal carriers from being placed in overhead bins following the death of a puppy on one of its flights.

==

Below by 143.215.123.181

James Corden and Olivia Munn have both publicly spoken out against United Airlines over this French bulldog tragedy.

It is still not noteworthy, I am sure if you look at the 90-year history loads of people let alone animals have died on United aircraft, stuff happens but it doesnt make it noteworthy. Adding anything on what was a fairly minor incident is undue weight. MilborneOne (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
United's piss-poor 2017-2018+ media image is obviously noteworthy. The countless references, the celebrities, the congressmen, the agencies involved. It's a huge fact that can't be ignored and obviously isn't. Does wikipedia need to wait for the obvious books that will be written?
I agree with Milborne. If you want to write about United Airlines, start your own website. The last time I looked you can start one for free at blogspot....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Snarky biased wikipedia editors. Sad.

Here's the latest United headline.

http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2018/06/20/united-airlines-flight-attendant-slams-travel-writer-for-tweeting-about-bad-service.html

Page protected

Page is currently protected, Please avoid vandalism, Thank you ResourcesFromWeb (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

airline apologists

we cannot have reasonably reported news about customer service disputes stifled because editors are apologists for the airlinesRsarlls (talk) 06:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

What? Mirza Ahmed (talk) 00:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Income figures not correct

Income figures wrong...should show net income of 2.1B not a loss. Click on reference #20 for details. Couldn’t fix myself since page is protected. Nobody291 (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Making a better fleet overview.

Should make a better overview of their current fleet on the main site. Approval to do so would be nice. Would give people an easier overview.

As long as it is not a repeat of the table in United Airlines fleet, a summary in prose would do no harm, can you give us an idea what you think it should be? MilborneOne (talk) 08:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

United moved from the NYSE to NASDAQ, intro needs updating

In August of 2018 United Continental Holdings announced a move from the NYSE to the NASDAQ, and as of September 7th, 2018 are now traded as NASDAQ: UAL Agremeister (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Guitar Incident

Is this incident really noteworthy enough to be mentioned in this article?Closetsingle (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

No it is really trivia and should be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I've commented the section out for now, not fully removed. We can give it a day or two to see if anyone has objections. Closetsingle (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2019

Journey uncertainties may include the best flight reservations to take to your destination in terms of safety and comfort, the choice of best route, timing, destination information, etc. United Airlines Customer Service Alaynaalva (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry your request does not make sense, please detail what you want added/removed or modified to improve the article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Slogan

Now also using....Connecting People, Uniting the world Jameszysull123 (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Guam as a hub

Following up on whether Guam is a hub for United Airlines, as this has been added/reverted several times by numerous people. The corporate fact sheet doesn't seem to mention it, but the airport and terminal maps page and the route map list it as a hub. The corporate fact sheet states "domestic" hubs, so maybe they consider GUM to be an international hub (despite being part of the United States).

The list of hubs on the airport and terminal maps page was modified very recently, some time between June and now, separating out key airports from hubs. FRA, HKG, LHR, and NRT were moved into the "key airports" section, whereas GUM stayed under hubs. Along the same line, the route map was changed to remove FRA, LHR, and NRT between February and April 2019. The corporate fact sheet hasn't had its list modified as far back as the Internet Archive can see (going back to July 2018), so I'd be more inclined to trust the list that was more recently updated, unless there's a Wikipedia policy to use the corporate fact sheet instead.

What are thoughts on this?--immewnity 19:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Do people fly to Guam on United to connect to other United flights as in a hub operation? MilborneOne (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, GUM is the connector airport for several Micronesian islands, as well as a few airports in Japan. A quick look shows that GUM is the only airport that United flies to from FUK, NGO, SPN, and YAP. It's a bit outdated, but this is a visual showing connectors.--immewnity 19:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree that Guam is a united hub, only that I disagree on the information on the number of passengers using Guam per year, if you see the link you are referring to it only reflects the number of passengers flying to Saipan and Honolulu, because it only records flights within the United States. It is much larger the number of passengers that United drives in Guam, is to look for information that reflects the true amount.Kevin Paniagua (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I did reach out to United and got confirmation back that GUM is a hub, designated as international (hence why it doesn't appear under "Domestic Hubs" on the corporate fact sheet). --immewnity 20:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

United Polaris Business: small suggested edit

Just something that struck me: shouldn't the last paragraph, detailing Polaris' introduction, be the first paragraph? Seems a bit odd at the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chidino (talk • contribs) 05:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Seats/Classes

Should someone write some sort of intro to the section about various classes/seats to explain what seats might be applicable in what situations? While it's not Wikipedia's job to be a menu, some explanation as to which services apply in what situations might be good. I know it's confusing and sometimes UA mixes (like repositioning int'l aircraft, as noted) but right now it's just an info dump and is so confusing I'm not sure it belongs. Obviously, it DOES, so how should it be cleaned up for consumption by the innocents?

Just suggestions. Tough page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chidino (talk • contribs) 05:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2019

Please add to company slogans: Connecting People. Uniting the World. TrafficAhead (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

​It's not present on History_of_United_Airlines#Slogans and I can't find sources about it. Is it possible that it is just one marketing campaign rather than a slogan? – Thjarkur (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, it appears to be listed here. https://hub.united.com/connecting-people-uniting-world-2247890534.html. Dunno, but maybe. TrafficAhead (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2020

United Airlines current fleet of aircraft - 737-700: 40 737-800: 141 737-9: 14 737-900: 12 737-900ER: 136 757-200: 53 757-300: 21 A319: 69 A320: 97 B767-300: 38 B767-400: 16 B777: 19 B777-300ER: 18 B787: 12 B789: 25 172.127.69.6 (talk) 05:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Airlines/Archive_3&oldid=1137283233"