Jump to content

Talk:Virgin America/Archive 1

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

Website Down

www.virginamerica.com has been down from 12:30PM Pacific Time and so far through 2:30PM Pacific Time on July 19, 2007, the first day of ticket sales. A note is available that the site will be up shortly and the phone number to contact for service. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dolphx (talk • contribs) 21:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

ICAO Code

VUS is not the official ICAO code. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.6.25.118 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC-7)

Well, all sources I can find on the internet listing the ICAO code for Virgin America list it as VUS, so as of now it stands because I cannot find any source to support your claim. If you do have some kind of source to support your assertion, then by all means replace it, but as the evidence right now points to VUS as being the ICAO code there's nothing to do. Thanks. NcSchu 19:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The latest edition (139) of the ICAO Document 8585 has VUS allocated to Vuela Bus of Mexico, but VUS is not listed in the FAA website. MilborneOne 18:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Virgin Americas ICAO code is VRD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.31.0 (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

DOT Approval

Tentative approval announce on 20th March. Full document here: http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p89/461049.pdf

Obviously this article will need updating soon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pixuk (talk • contribs) 19:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Already done. NcSchu 19:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Destination

I think they might fly to MIA because to today when i went to MIA i saw a Virgin America plain. Not atlantoc-it was america. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arigont (talk • contribs) 17:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC-7)

They were probably just raising support, until they officially announce it as a definite destination it will be not be included. NcSchu 01:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The jobs section of their website is currently listing a couple of top-level positions for San Diego. No announcement yet, but expect SAN to be the next destination. WildCowboy 21:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hubs/Focus Cities

Does anybody know if they'll have any focus city or secondary hubs? If so where and what airport. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.175.107 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC-7)

Yeah, I think LAX is a secondary hub; VA flies to JFK and soon Dulles in addition to SFO from there. 12:58, September 4 2007 (UTC)

It's impossible to identify any kind of hub other than SFO at this point in time. There are so few flights that every airport looks like a hub of some kind. Let's wait until VX gets rolling for several months until we make a decision about listing other hubs. NcSchu(Talk) 02:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

IFE

I re-instated the still-relevant bits of the IFE section. I moved some of it into the Main Cabin section, as it was relevant to those seats only ... richi 16:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the IFE aspects of Virgin America are some of its competitive advantages over other airlines, I think the LFE should get its own section within the article that highlights Red, the technology behind the scenes, and the user interface. Perhaps this section could go under the Cabin heading as it applies to both the main cabin and first class. Currently, Red is discussed in both the Main Cabin and First Class sections in a nonuniform way, which is extremely confusing and does an injustice to people reading the article. Quarkfactor 05:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If you look in the cabin section there is a link to another wikipedia page that has a thorough description of "Red". I decided that linking to existing information was better than copy-editing as the information on "Red" is more relevant on the wiklinked page. NcSchu(Talk) 13:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Trivia Section?

Wikipedia discourages trivia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redtroll (talk • contribs) 05:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't keep reverting this edit. Here's why:
  1. Terminal location should be in an appropriate article section, not in Trivia
  2. The "popular belief" needs a cite -- and one that justifies the inclusion of what looks like an un-notable "fact"
  3. Roses should be in an appropriate article section
  4. Exit row seating is already covered in the article
... richi (talk) 11:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I should mention that the terminal location information, as it was displayed, has POV issues. It is a matter of opinion whether or not VX is "privileged" to use the International Terminal. I agree with Richi's point about the "popular belief" issue. In fact I find it hard to belief most people even take notice of IATA code changes/assignations so I'd be interested to see what kind of citation can be found to support that "fact". I find nothing wrong with mentioning the roses, especially because it has a citation, but yes, it should be in an appropriate section. I'm going to go ahead and add the roses and the information about the terminal at SFO in a less biased way in a relevant part of the article, hopefully no one will find problems with that. NcSchu(Talk) 15:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this is just part of a larger problem with this article-- the "approval process" is not an important aspect of the airline anymore, and yet it takes up the majority of the prime article real estate. The most important parts of the article should be the original aspects of the airline, like the IFE, the check-in process, etc... I think the article should be reorganized to highlight these aspects and not the plethora of useless approval information (or at least degrade the approval information to a less prominent position). That way, these trivia items, which currently have seemingly no rightful location, will fit into new sections corresponding with their subject matter. Quarkfactor 05:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, although the approval process is in the past, yes, it was a very important part of Virgin America's history and a bulk of the information should be left in. One issue I see is that the section labeled "Approval process" is really just the history, so I will go ahead and rename that. I've been working on a way to consolidate the history to remove a lot of the fluff that was added over time (as this article was routinely updated as the events occurred). I also disagree with focusing on the "original" aspects of the airline. First of all they're really not all that original, and secondly I feel that if we concentrate too much on that information the article will look more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. In depth information about the entertainment system, the check-in process, what you can expect on board, etc. can be easily found on Virgin America's website and if you look at other airline pages you will find that the situation is the same. NcSchu(Talk) 13:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

My edits were more of a clean-up, I thought the cabins section didn't read as well as it might have and I thought eleVAte warranted more than a sidebar mention.Travellingcari (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

History + Support/Opposition Rewrite

I just did a massive edit of the first two sections of this article, in which I rewrote or reformatted a lot of the History section and combined the Support and opposition section into the History section. I did this for a couple of reasons. First of all, the information in the article was written mostly as it happened. This led to a lot of choppiness (ie. Date, blah blah.) in the History section that I thought took away from the article and made it more difficult to read. It also meant that as time went on, there was a lot of unnecessary detail to the various commentary (which is essentially what it turned into). I'm not trying to criticize anyone, by the way, because it's just natural. Secondly, User:Quarkfactor brings up a very good point two sections above, in which he talks about the need to have a large part of the article dedicated to the approval process. Although it's an important part of Virgin America's history, I agree. So, I removed the small section on the support/opposition and combined the important parts into a paragraph in the History section, and tried to remove, again, a lot of the fluff. Of course, it was hard to remove a lot of it, but I think I did a pretty good job in leaving the important parts in. So, there you have it. I hope this is better for everyone. NcSchu(Talk) 22:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

great job, NcSchu. I added a little to history given the recent profit report. I'm wondering, however, what you would think about renaming the destinations section to operations and expanding it slightly. I have an idea kicking around but I was curious for your input. Travellingcari (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
As the article is under the guidance of Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines it should stay "destinations". But what were you thinking of adding? Also, I did a little clean up to what you added (it would have been better if you added it before I rewrote the section as now it doesn't blend in very well, but oh well). NcSchu(Talk) 22:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
20 20 hindsight, right? I unfortunately seem to have forgotten to e-mail my notes to myself so I'll have to get back to you about details but possibly its status as the only California based airline. Also wanted to address whether it was significant that the international terminal is used at SFO -- it's also used at JFK and, possibly anecdotal since I can't find references to it but have the personal experience of flying into Bradley at LAX on 12/28. Make sense? Travellingcari (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC) ETA: meant to ask, any particular reason you removed the citation? I have no issue with your changes, but I was curious as to why you took out the citation? Travellingcari (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't remove the citation, I moved it to the end of the mini-paragraph.. Also, it is noted that VX is one of the only airlines that uses the International Terminal at SFO. NcSchu(Talk) 02:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
re: citation, sorry about that, apparently it didn't load properly for me when I said that. And perhaps I wasn't clear re: SFO/int'l terminal. I know it's mentioned, but I don't get why it's significant/special when it applies to JFK and possibly LAX as well. Travellingcari (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Well at LAX Virgin America is not really in an international terminal situation, and at JFK there really isn't an "International Terminal". At SFO it's just kind of ironic that the terminal is actually called: "International Terminal", but yet is not really so. NcSchu(Talk) 04:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Slogan

It's true that VA's slogan is "Flying is Believing." Just look at the YouTube videos (Username: VirginAmerica) titled "Virgin Americans" and look at the end, which shows the logo and the slogan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Limaindia (talk • contribs) 15:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Without watching the videos, it sounds like they're probably marketing clips, in which case "Flying is Believing" is probably just a marketing phrase. Just because it appears under (?) the logo doesn't mean it's the slogan. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 21:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not arguing for it being included one way or another, but I think it is the slogan or tagline as it's referenced here: http://www.virgin.com/Companies/VirginAmerica/VirginAmerica.aspx and http://onboard.virginamerica.com/downloads/brandnew_WILDPOST_01.pdf I don't mean just the fact that it is referenced, but rather the manner in which it is. Just my .02 Travellingcari (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
See this photo

eleVAte

NcSchu, I agree with your edit that the Founding Member info isn't appropriate for the introduction. I actually think any detail of eleVAte should be held off until such time as VX actually formalizes the details. Not appropriate for a cite, but there's been word from a VX insider on Flyertalk that this information is forthcoming so I'm crossing my fingers. Thoughts? Travellingcari (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, those were my thoughts exactly. The eleVAte program isn't officially launched yet, so I thought it would better to leave the mention in the main paragraph, but leave off any section until the program's actually officially launched and when we have specific details about it. I didn't want to delete the information, but it just didn't fit anywhere else and per my last sentence I didn't want to create a new section. I wouldn't be surprised if the launch is in this quarter, since founding members were only until December 2007 it seems likely. NcSchu(Talk) 00:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I (at least I think it was me who added it, can't remember now) wanted at least one line of yes VX has a program and it is... but I don't think it's anything other than speculation at this point. Don't know if you read FT at all but here is one of the VX insider's first posts. Should be interesting to see what develops. I didn't even realize the 12/31 cutoff was there until I saw your edit. Travellingcari (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Yes, I'm admittedly a "Founding Member", joined the first day in fact, so that's how I knew at least. NcSchu(Talk) 04:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Flights to/from Boston?

Does anyone know if Virgin will have flights to/from Boston?
Native94080 (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Native94080

Fair use rationale for Image:Virgin America logo.png

Image:Virgin America logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Corrected! No need to worry, move along, move along. NcSchu(Talk) 04:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

LA Times Article

NcSchu, any reason for the revert? I think it fit well in the article and speaks to competitors' response ~ 6 months following the launch. It wasn't my addition, but I think it's a good one. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 22:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, I don't think it's particularly notable. I vote for just a little add-on of "Los Angeles" where it already talks about the SFO competition. NcSchu(Talk) 00:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this is about more than SFO. VX is having an impact that wasn't expected so soon. It's pushing JetBlue to do what none expected, and it's the start, it appears, of something bigger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travellingcari (talk • contribs) 00:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Skybus Lease Confustion

Per the change and this reversion, I think the confusion lies in the fact that it currently says:

Virgin America will receive back two Airbus A319s that were leased to Skybus Airlines in late 2008.

The change was made to 2007 as I think the sentence says when they were released, not when the were returned, which was what the reversion corrected to. I think the change this morning was correct but not worth getting into an edit war over so taking it here TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 14:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's supposed to be saying that aircraft that were leased in 2007 to Skybus will be returned in late 2008. I'll go ahead and make it clearer. NcSchu(Talk) 15:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah that makes more sense. I think sentence parsing was causing the issues -- as in they couldn't have been leased in late 2008. I think your change is clearer. PS: Do you have anything to add for C. David Cush by any chance? I've currently got more sources than text, eek! TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 16:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Some info here. NcSchu(Talk) 16:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Focus Cities/Secondary Hubs

As far as I can tell, there's no source that says VX has set any goals to have a secondary hub or focus city at any other airport. With only seven destinations and a little more routes, I find it very hard to believe that it's 'obvious' or 'clear' that there is a secondary hub anywhere. And anyway, that's not any reason to include something, as it's still original research to assume something because of something else. NcSchu(Talk) 01:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not vandalism. "Hub" is a defined term. Looking at the route map, you can see the defined term in action. All of their destinations greater than 200 nm are served from LAX. The same goes for SFO. You can't say that for any of their other cities, and they have made statements that they don't plan for it to be true for any other cities. It's possible that JFK could become a smaller focus city, and that would be original research to say that point blank right now, so I won't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Also see http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/item.aspx?type=blog&ak=54287968.blog&csp=34 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That's all I was asking for. But as you say, 'Hub' is a defined term, and according to the definition a Secondary Hub is essentially a large Focus City, which itself is defined as a place from which an airline has several flights to airports other than its hubs. Right now VX has three routes from LAX to non-hubs. JFK, IAD, and SEA have two. So are we saying that the difference between a secondary hub and a normal destination is one route? NcSchu(Talk) 12:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The "primary" hub (about which you agree) has only 5 non-hub destinations. The point that makes LAX a seconday over, say, SEA, is that they go to every other city other than short hops. The only two cities they are missing are LAS and SAN. For their type of airline, which focuses on amenities, it would not make sense for them to service those two cities from LAX. Once ORD is added as planned (see http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/item.aspx?type=blog&ak=49727760.blog), it will be serviced only from SFO and LAX (4 flights each), which I believe should prove the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Then we can wait until that happens. I'd be fine with it once there's a clear definition for it, but as of now the lines are very blurry. NcSchu(Talk) 16:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It's already announced (as per the article listed above). Isn't the announcement enough to show their intent, and to consider it a hub? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe they are still waiting for approval, unless you've read something different? You can't book flights for the route yet so I have a feeling they have not. NcSchu(Talk) 18:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Approval is not what they are waiting for, but I won't say more since it's original research. However, isn't their intent what's relevent as to whether or not they consider LAX to be a hub? They've expressed their intent as per the article above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

They needed FAA approval and slot allocation when they first applied, obviously it isn't a shoo-in if they can't accept bookings yet. We can't include destinations and routes that for all intents and purposes via VX's official route map and booking service don't exist yet when we define hubs and such things, just like you can't say an airline has the largest fleet of a particular aircraft when only one has been delivered. NcSchu(Talk) 03:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point. In the article I referenced VX has stated that ORD will have 4 flights each from LAX and SFO if approved. By that *statement*, they are adding credence to the idea that those are their hubs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it chose LAX and SFO to add the ORD flight to doesn't necessarily mean that they are obviously the two hubs—they could have chosen any airports to fly to. There is no explanation in the article as to VX's reason for doing so. However like I said, the other article (Hub Guide) can be used for the LAX reference as it seems to be from a reliable source, even though I'm still uncomfortable defining them so early in the airline's history. Also, please sign your talk page posts with four ~'s. NcSchu(Talk) 11:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Then why is Virgin America not mentioned as a secondary nor a focus city anywhere on the LAX page??? Huh?? Cashier freak (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Focus cities are practically never mentioned in articles. NcSchu(Talk) 00:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
But the majority of the airport articles mention focus cities. Like LAX, it mentions that it "serves as a hub for both United Airlines and Alaska Airlines, and as a focus city for American Airlines, Southwest Airlines, Qantas, and Mexicana Airlines" at the beginning of the article. Since the this page has that LAX is a secondary hub/focus city, i've added it on there.Cashier freak (talk)
Go to Los Angeles International Airport to the talk page where this issue is being resolved. The airport article is fully protected and we are having a resolution discussion in general for what airlines do what at LAX under the guidance of at least three administrators. Thanks and look forward to seeing you there and solving this probelm. 96.5.66.240 (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Decisions on other talk pages have no bearing here. You can't just remove cited information because you disagree with it or because it's 'outdated'. NcSchu(Talk) 03:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Article from this morning, again quoting the CEO that when the fly to/from ORD, it will be to both LAX and SFO: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-mon-virgin-oharenov17,0,918931.story Ron Schnell 09:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs)

Article from this morning, quoting the CEO about several additional cities, with flights *all* originating from SFO *and* LAX. Please keep these articles in mind if there is a future review (or dispute). I suggest we follow the mediator's advice, and review every couple of months: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aviationdaily&id=news/VAM112508.xml&headline=Virgin%20America%20Raises%20More%20Cash Ron Schnell 19:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs)

Please lock this article

If you are an administrator reading this, please lock or protect this article to suspend edit warring while a multi-article dispute on information within the article is resolved. Thanks -96.5.66.240 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.36.127 (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Expert Needed

We need someone from or related to Virgin America to give us a definitive listing their hubs, secondary hubs, and focus cities. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.36.127 (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on what people do in real life that would somehow make them an 'expert' in this situation. Provide information that the USA today source is somehow not legitimate or provide a more reliable source that doesn't list LAX as a hub. This website isn't based upon people's opinions, it's based sources and policies. NcSchu(Talk) 00:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
And again, here is another source that explains how Virgin America is focusing on LAX to make it a size rivaling that of SFO, which is what a focus city is. NcSchu(Talk) 00:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
The USAToday blogger, Ben Mutzbah, who usually cites his sources as is very evident by reading the rest of the blog, does not have any citations for this particular post. It's not even a full blown USAToday article and is built on his own "original research" which isn't allowed on Wikipedia, and the LATimes says they'd like to be as big in LA as SF but that isn't yet the case so until it has officially happened it is somewhat here say and should yet be posted on the article as fact at this time as it hasn't yet materialized. The expert I want is someone from the Airport Authority in Los Angeles or Virgin America itself, even if it means emailing them to ask and posting the response on this talk page as the citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.36.127 (talk) 01:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

VX flies from LAX to every destination they have, other than those less than 250 miles away (plus SFO for hub-to-hub). They are building an entirely new terminal of which they will have half (T3), designed by the same architect as B6's T5. If you want to hear it from someone "from or related to" VX, give me a way to get in touch with you. Ron Schnell 03:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs)

Who are you? Your signature wasn't your actual signature because it was auto-signed. Come to my talk page and tell me how you can validate this. If you can and do then I'm all set in terms of resolving my concerns. Let's have it. Obviously my talk page can be accessed through my signature ----->68.52.36.127 (talk) 03:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
You were also in the discussion earlier on the talk page here in this article. Why not flex your powers to bring this to a conclusion there? Come to my talk page. Let's see what you can do to validate. 68.52.36.127 (talk) 03:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Based on your comments here---> http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-864515.html , you don't seem like you have a connection with either of these places. Really interested to see what you say on my talk page. 68.52.36.127 (talk) 03:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
It's strange, but that "archive" page is attributing posts that are not mine as though they are mine, and is intermixing my real comments with other peoples' comments. Is your "talk page" private? I'm unfamiliar. I am easy to find on the web. Ron Schnell 04:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not private. You can access it by clicking the link in parenthesis here-----> 68.52.36.127 (talk) 04:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC) .....that says "talk". It's not private. Does it have to be for you to comment? Also, if you aren't Aviators99 then why does that user page have your name on it?
Google doesn't place you with either of the organizations I mentioned at the beginning either. It just further places you with the commenter in the forum I linked to earlier. If you can prove or get someone to prove it here or on my talk page just do it. In fact, to be quite honest, I'm beginning to not even care anymore at this point. This one detail is such a small part of Wikipedia that I'm not even sure its worth the effort anymore at this point. I could be a whole lot more productive and useful editor doing other things instead. Thanks! 68.52.36.127 (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I am indeed aviators99, but what I was saying is that there are posts on that page that were posted by others and have my name on the top. If you go directly to the flyertalk page (not the archive), you can see who posted what. I agree that it isn't worth the time---plus, it was already debated here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I knew you were a fraud. You could never have backed anything up...hahaha. How lame...definitely wasn't worth the effort I was putting in. 68.52.36.127 (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, you've certainly succeeded in confusing me. Ron Schnell 07:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
(outdented for clarity) Okay, this is ridiculous; 68.52.36.127, unless you have legitimate reasons for not including this information, then removing it again will be vandalism. I think it's pretty clear you are a troll here and you are trying to push your own opinions into editing. If you'll look at the previous discussion you'll see that I didn't think it was appropriate to mention at first either, but I didn't try to debate the sources. Please understand what original research is, as that deals with WP editors injecting their own research into this encyclopedia, which is not the case here. We have sources that back up LAX's status of a focus city and your claims to their unreliability don't seem based on anything specific or recorded and seem to be your opinion alone. NcSchu(Talk) 13:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh well if it makes you happy go ahead. I've placed a more appropriate tag on the page based on your LA Times source's predictory tone but like I said it really just isn't worth it for such a little deal anymore. Thanks and Have a great week! P.S. Got a nice laugh out of your troll remark. Perhaps over-reacting just a little bit with that one.96.5.66.240 (talk) 05:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC) aka 68.52.36.127
The fact that it's not yet the size of SFO means that it's not a hub yet, but it perfectly fulfills the definition of a focus city. Now can you please stop trolling this page and adding nothing useful to the discussion or the article? It's clear that you and you alone have an issue with this and for no legitimate reason. You first tried to argue that SFO wasn't a hub for Virgin America until a source was provided, now you're trying to argue that LAX isn't a focus city when there are two sources. I suggest you live up to the fact that you have been proven incorrect and learn to deal with it. NcSchu(Talk) 12:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The tag fits because you have Secondary hub listed rather than Focus City and really the USAToday source calling LAX a Focus City cites Virgin America and vriginamerica.com doesn't have what Mr. Mutzbah claims to have found there so there would be a tag for that listing too although I will no longer actually remove or change the article information itself. Sorry dude. You just can't have your cake and eat it too I guess. 96.5.66.240 (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdented for clarity) A secondary hub is just a large focus city. If your issue was with it being listed under secondary hub instead of focus city then you should have moved it to the appropriate area. Now it's listed under focus city, so there's even less of a reason for you to remove it or add any template. Virgin America's website is not the only source that can be used. An infinite number of sources are available to use on Wikipedia and the fact that you're using this as an argument shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. If you continue to revert sourced information without a legitimate reason, then you will be blocked from editing. That's what it comes down to. The crystal ball template is for speculative information or for information that may or may not happen in the future. Both sources indicate LAX is a focus city right now and your claim that because the LA Times article says Virgin America is building up LAX to rival SFO only means it would speculative to put LAX under hubs, not focus cities or secondary hubs. NcSchu(Talk) 16:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Just like a Press Release about any future plan no matter how certain from an airline includes a crystal ball clause at the end so should an article with content cited by a similar type of source as those Press Releases. The USAToday's only citation for their article was Virgin America and when you go to Virgin America the information the USAToday cites from them is non-existant thus making the USAToday a flawed source because its source doesn't back up the information it claims to have gotten from there. Since you're empahsizing this flawed source now I've included the appropriate tag to reflect my thoughts which is well within my right to do so. I've reverted no changes to the article information. Only added what I feel is an appropriate tag and talked about it on the talk page. Therefore I'm not vandalising. 96.5.66.240 (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There are several articles and documents online which reference the fact that Virgin America has been building a brand new terminal at LAX, and it will be completed in the next month. They will occupy fully 1/2 of the terminal. Is this of use as a source?

Also, I disagree that Virgin America's operation is any smaller at LAX than it is at SFO. They fly to every destination they have from LAX, other than those that are close enough that it wouldn't make sense to fly there.Ron Schnell 03:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs)

The terminal doesn't make it a hub. Alaska will be the big player with their hub in that terminal so it's not exactly Virgin's own project. Also, the operation at LAX is four cities according the LAX article and is factually smaller than SFO. If it was hub the airline would say it was based at both SFO and LAX in their description but they don't and they would serve EVERY city in ther route. You can't say that serve all of the cities and then add a disclaimer that oh by the way they don't really. Northwest flies to more places from LAX and it's not a hub or a focus for them. That's a poor argument. We need the third party because you and the other one just keep repeating yourself and not moving things forward. Also, you forge your signature every time and it gets auto-signed and you can't even decide exactly what your identity is on Wikipedia or whether you really know how it works and are familiar with it or not per the earlier exchanges. If there is a scam artist involved in this article it is you. We still need that consensus below from the third parties. ANYONE??? 96.5.66.240 (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not trying to "forge" anything. I was told to sign my edits with four tildes, so that's what I do. My name is "Ron Schnell", and my handle is "aviators99". What more do you want to know? As far as LAX not flying *everywhere*, do you think they would need to have a flight from LAX to SAN? The disclaimer, as you call it, is totally valid, as such a flight wouldn't make sense. That just leaves one location where they don't fly from LAX, and that's LAS. Here are the tildes: Ron Schnell 16:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs)

Not related to the debate for a second...If you're signing then why does the SineBot say "preceding unsigned comment"? I've never seen that before. Also, why did you act like you could provide a real live connection to an "expert" at the airport or the airline earlier in the discussion and say that you could easily be found elsewhere on the web and start going by Ron Schnell rather than your username when everything I can find shows that not to be the case? That's where you've got me confused so if you could clear that up I'd appreciate it for the purpose of knowing who I am dealing with in the overall discussion. Thanks! I'd also like to wait for the outside objective input that me and Ncshu have both gone after at the aviation project and a consensus below because the three of alone obviously can't solve this on our own or we would have already. 96.5.66.240 (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
You know...and I don't why nobdody on Wikipedia ever does this rather than arguiung about little things for weeks. Somebody could just email Virgin America via their website, ask if LAX is a sec. hub/focus city, and post the response email back to the talk page and we would have a definitive, final answer, that no one could argue about because it "came from the horses mouth" so to speak. Are yall afraid of what they might say or something? 96.5.66.240 (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said at the LAX talk page last Saturday night: You can't define hubs and focus cities by comparing airlines of different sizes and different national origins. Stop comparing with NW or DL or CO.

I said I was going to be neutral for this issue because I wished not to dedicate the time to research, but your behavior is forcing me to discount you. Instead of arguing with reason, you accused everybody of everything from scam artist to vandals to conflict of interest (for an airport I hate to use???) to unfair bias (demanding equal treatment as an anon history-laden IP against long-time users). Unless you can present valid arguments, you're trolling. HkCaGu (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a shared IP so I can't account for all its ever done. I personally have been on Wikipedia for a year so I have some experience and now that we're all even in discounting everyone's arguments, how does this help our quest for consensus? I percieve my arguments to be valid. 96.5.66.240 (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
There...now I'm registered and no longer a "history-laden IP". 45Factoid44 (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Previously < 96.5.66.240 (talk) >

Let me attempt to summarize what I and everyone else have been telling you:

  • Hub/FC is not always published by the airline. Some airlines don't care, but that does not mean they don't have hubs/FCs.
  • Hub/FC is not defined by quantitative comparison to other airlines.

Now can we have some valid arguments please. HkCaGu (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. Now let me explain to you what I think, partially in a fashion much like I think Southwest would:
  • If an airline doesn't give a station a title than it is just a basic station, large or small. There is a whole entry by the SW Route Planner on their blog that talks about this( http://blogsouthwest.com/blog/the-point-of-our-route-network ).
  • Wikipedia is an encylcopedia so unless we have hard core supportable facts then they are not encyclopedic and shouldn't be in this article or encyclopedia.
  • It would be a lot easier if we could just agree on point two and get a firm answer from the airline using the afforementioned method in the discussion or wait until we have someone who can analyze all of our arguments objectively and not just keep shooting down all points and throwing their same oppinion out there over and over again likes it's gonna recieve a different response this time.

That's what I think. 45Factoid44 (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikpedia's agreed definition of a Focus city is a location that is not a hub, but from which the airline has non-stop flights to several destinations other than its hubs. Which indicates that LAX is a focus city for Virgin America as it has flights to several destinations other than its hubs. MilborneOne (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
So does IAD and JFK but they aren't considered by anybody here to be such. Just because non-hub flying is done which occurs all over the country with many airlines doesn't make a city a focus city. There are dozens upon dozens of examples to support this so that does not work for me. Sorry. 45Factoid44 (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Stop giving me the same story over and over again and actually get a firm yes or no in the way I outlined or move down and to the consensus needed topic and place your vote for inclusion or non-inclusion with a statement of rationale although I'd prefer a firm answer. 45Factoid44 (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Although you state it does not work for me it is the agreed definition which can be the only inclusion criteria. Just because it has been ignored in other articles does not make it wrong (not sure who by anybody here is). MilborneOne (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
It isn't the only inlusion criteria and I gave a whole case for why it doesn't work before I said that so don't cut an paste my argument. If you aren't going to attempt contact with the airline then I'd appreciate if you would just vote below like everyone else. If your side is the majority when the protection is lifted in a week then you will prevail whether we agree or not. 45Factoid44 (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Can I remind you about WP:CIVIL you asked for opinions at the airports project which is what was given, it appears that my answer is not agreable to you but please respect the guidelines on civility and note that editors dont have sides and editors do not prevail, only consensus prevails. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean to be uncivil. If you see my user page it states that I always assume good faith. What I asked for on the airlines project was help with a consensus and for everyone to come and vote. I don't understand why everyone would rather throw away their time arguing with me rather than just going ahead and voting to settle the issue. We need a majority vote by the time the protection expires to establish a consensus. 45Factoid44 (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Accepted, I would suggest that you ask just a simple one-line question for consensus rather than repeating the arguments which have already been stated. Something like LAX should be described as a focus city then other editors can just give a simple one line answer rather than repeating and rebutting others arguments. MilborneOne (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. Should I note that under my post for the rest or would you suggest revising mine as well? Either's fine with me. 45Factoid44 (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
OK I have put a section under your comment below see what you think. MilborneOne (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Awesome! I like it. Thanks! Now we're on to something. 45Factoid44 (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus Needed

To build a consensus on describing Los Angles International Airport as a secondary hub or a focus city please sign your name with four tildes (~~~~) under the position that you support, please only add a brief comment. You may wish to sign you name to more that one position but please conduct any extended commentary in the discussion section. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Describe Los Angeles International Airport as a secondary hub
    • Ron Schnell 00:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC) All destinations other than LAS have non-stops to LAX.
  • Describe Los Angeles International Airport as a focus city
    • MilborneOne (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC) as per definition at Focus city
    • Ron Schnell 00:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC) If it fails to be called a secondary hub, it should at least be a focus city (by definition to me it is both)
    • HkCaGu (talk) 05:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Among VX destinations, LAX quantitatively it fits the definition. I'm not sure it can be a hub since there may not be too many who transit.
    • NcSchu(Talk) 22:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Despite various irrelevant and baseless claims, there are numerous sources backing up the inclusion of LAX as a focus city. LAX has practically the same number of flights as SFO and has been officially noted as an airport of interest to build up to the size of SFO, which specifically fits the 'focus city' definition. There are absolutely zero policies in existence on Wikipedia that state titles may not be sourced to anything but the official company's website, so necessity to have Virgin America comment is moot.
    • Synchronism (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC) VA's proposed and actual business model is antithetical to hub-and-spoke route structure; point-point airline.
    • Buggadugga (talk) 02:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC) LAX should be considered as a focus city because when you look at the total number of departures per week (provided by Ron Schnell/Aviators99), it has nearly double the departures per week of JFK, the airport with the next highest number of departures per week. The comments on this talk page have also influenced my comment, or vote if you will.


Discussion

Points of argument not to be a Secondary Hub or Focus City:

  • If an airline doesn't give a station a title than it is just a basic station, large or small. There is a whole entry by the SW Route Planner on their blog that talks about this( http://blogsouthwest.com/blog/the-point-of-our-route-network ).
  • Wikipedia is an encylcopedia so unless we have hard core supportable facts then they are not encyclopedic and shouldn't be in this article or encyclopedia. That means that without word from the airline this is speculative oppinion by people and shouldn't be here.
  • USAToday cites Virgin America but virginamerica.com doesn't contain the information they cited and the USAToday source is from their travel blog and not an actual printed article in that paper.
  • The LA Times source specualtes that LAX will become another hub but it hasn't occured yet and that was before the fuel crisis.
  • The "new terminal" will be primarily the Alaska Airlines hub and there are as of yet no posted sources about it, or Virgin doing big things it, or building it and a google search only reveals these same users speculating on other forums.
  • LAX has as many non-hub cities from VX as they do from DL,NW, etc etc. and that doesn't make it a focus city for them either. *Most airlines do list their focus cities publicly.

45Factoid44 (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Points of argument to be a Secondary Hub or Focus City:

  • VX flies from LAX to all of their destinations other than LAS, and for the future announced destinations they have stated they will fly to both SFO and LAX
  • VX is spending substantial money on capital improvements to T3 at LAX, at which they will occupy half of the terminal (http://www.lacity.org/lawa/bac_agendas/lawabac_agendas27154703_07282008.pdf)
  • Above, 45Factoid44 uses the fact that "it hasn't happened yet", as an argument to show that it hasn't happened yet. This is an invalid argument.
  • Above, 45Factoid44 states that there is nothing on the web that talks about Virgin doing big things to rebuild T3 at LAX, but please note the URL above which was found via a simple Google search

I don't have a problem with you commenting. I just ask that we keep the posts separate so as not to confuse anybody and keep the arguments on a level playing field. That seemingly doesn't happen when you create your own post and then go line by line in mine as well. Let's not let this get in the way of the meaningful vote process we are now having though. I think we're making alot of progress this way. Also, in response to your responses to my arguments the LA Times article says that LAX is not yet on the same level as SFO but may well eventually be. Virgin isn't listing both SFO and LAX as bases yet on their site either, just SFO. I'm not just blowing smoke up everyone's butt saying it hasn't happened yet based on my own oppinion with no sources. In terms of of T3. You found the minutes from a budget meeting talking about improvements but I can't find any highly publicized statements about a "new terminal" as you and others had suggested in our previous discussion to rival that which is taking place at SFO on a dramatically larger in scale and Virgin's operation is small right now in that terminal compared to Alaska's which has a full fledged hub operating in it. Also, LAX as a whole is undergoing improvements right now and it has been a trend at LAX for the airlines themselves to fund and layout improvements in their terminals. This isn't unique to Virgin and Terminal 3. 45Factoid44 (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it was unique to VX, I only said that they are doing it. Why would they spend many millions of dollars improving a terminal that is just an average ground station for them? It only makes sense for a focus city (and in this case, a secondary hub).

Virgin America says that they are “planning to update the space and help re-establish views of the runway and cityscape.” That’s what will happen before they move in. They are also “working with LAWA on the Phase 2 renovation, which will focus on creating a more guest-facing experience using innovative and sustainable design principles (with a bit of a retro twist back to the terminal’s original 1961 design). Now that’s something I’d love to see, but I do wonder how much effort Virgin America should be putting into this when they need to focus on running their business.

From http://crankyflier.com/2008/09/09/virgin-americas-impending-growth-spurs-lax-terminal-shifts/ Ron Schnell 14:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs)

This isn't what this section is for
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment There might be some sockpuppetry going on here. The two recent IP users to post are both AOL IP Addresses in the vicinity of Dulles, VA. Not sure how AOL works except that it gives you a new IP every time you log on, but since the locales are the same, it could be the same person. NcSchu(Talk) 20:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

So when you have a hard time getting a majority your answer is to try and deface users who voted the other way?? Way to assume good faith and allow for a fair consensus. All of AOL's operations are in Dulles, VA per AOL so of course all of their IP's are gonna show that location. Way to actually do your research there. If you didn't bother to check that then maybe you might not be doing your research well on this either. I'll be happy to request to extended protection and dispute resolution if you don't allow for a smooth voting process. 45Factoid44 (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
See herefor some proof of legitimacy for WFlyer08. In theory that with my previous statements just above should be enough to clear the two users in question. See what happens when you actually take the time to assume good faith and do research to check the people out. Thanks and keep up the voting. 45Factoid44 (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Since when is Wikipedia based on voting? If I recall it's based on consensus, something which you obviously didn't research. The way I see it, every editor who's weighed in on this issue who has even a minute understanding of Wikipedia policies in regard to sourcing agrees that LAX should remain. We try to avoid primary sources, not use them as the only source of confirmation. This is the same reason we don't describe store employees as 'sales associates' or whatever ridiculous title individual stores give them and instead rely on neutral secondary sources. I didn't try to revert the edits, it was just an observation given the edits were made within minutes of each other. You haven't assumed good faith from the beginning with your cries of conspiracy by LAX lovers or Virgin America lovers or some other ridiculous statement (including splattering templates all over my talk with accusations of somehow being involved in this mass conspiracy you believe), so please don't try to act like a white knight on this issue. NcSchu(Talk) 23:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
A consensus means a majority. We reach a majority by taking a vote/poll(call it what you will) to get that majority which equals a consensus. Look up "consensus" in websters. Consensus doesn't mean what NcSchu thinks goes and everyone elses opinion doesn't matter. Trying to force things your way when you are one in several billion across the world with access to Wikipedia just doesn't cut it on this playing field. EVERYONE'S opinnion matters. So when we have a majority in agreement then we will go with it. Also, it was perfectly reasonable to assume that someone from LA might be biased towards LA or that one of the "founding members" as you call it of the VX Frequent Flyer program and someone whose profile says that they have focused specifically on editing Virgin brand articles on Wikipedia might have a conflict of interest towards Virgin. Thanks and let the "consensus building" continue because right now there are just as many opposed as are for, which means you're not in a position to be getting all high and mighty either. Just let the process work its way out. 45Factoid44 (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Now, admittedly we are not just taking a poll, but basing this decision entirely on the results of the poll as you are saying is highly improper.
What may be reasonable for you looks a lot like not assuming good faith to everybody else. And you were obviously investigating every road possible to discredit every editor that tried to oppose you, even going to other websites to discredit User:Aviators99. That is unacceptable, immature and uncivil, and it is certainly not assuming good faith. NcSchu(Talk) 15:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we aren't just having a poll and I had help setting this up and advice from an administrator in how to get more people involved although I wish we had more. I wasn't trying to disparage User:Aviators99. He told me that I could find him elsewhere to show that he could provide a connection with VX or LAX and that wasn't the case and I was confused and he has neglected to provide any explanation what-so-ever. I haven't removed his or your stances though. Also, just taking your oppinion which you have made the "white elephant" so to speak on this talk page so far is not acceptable either and you do use attack and disparage tactacs in the discussion whenever your stance prevailing appears to be in any kind of jeopardy. I think I'm going to seek informal mediation for this article as I want resolution, and not argument, and don't have any interest in dragging this out for a month because there's more to my life than Wikipedia. 45Factoid44 (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Now, just so it's clear for everyone (mostly 45Factoid44)...I would not resist a consensus that agrees that LAX should not be mentioned as either a focus city or a hub. I don't own this page, and neither does anyone else. My opinion exists only as that of an interested editor. As you can see a few sections above, I wasn't quick to accept the information in the beginning until a source was provided. But my whole problem with this argument is in the other side's reasoning, which I will analyze here:

  • They first say that Virgin America itself is the only source that can rule on this information. This is false. There is no Wikipedia policy that exists that makes primary sources the only acceptable resource. In fact, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to primary ones.
  • They then say that the author of the USA Today source is unreliable. Ben Mutzabaugh is a USA Today travel reporter, and I haven't seen sources provided on this page that prove this person to be an unreliable source. So until I see that, I don't see why we can discount his interpretation of LAX in Virgin America's route system based solely on the opinion of two people.
  • Then there's the issue that the LA Times article is somehow speculative in nature. I can see where this comes from, but I still think the sentence, "The airline said that over time its operations at LAX would be “relatively equal in size” to its main hub in San Francisco where it has its headquarters." proves that LAX is a focus city. A focus city is smaller than a hub, but is an airport which the airline wishes to concentrate on. Given that Virgin America wishes to make LAX rival SFO, I would see this as fitting the definition perfectly. The Wikipedia definition is also satisfied very well, too.

There's my take. NcSchu(Talk) 01:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

  • If a company doesn't denote a city as something officially then the city doesn't have the title and an encyclopedia must be EXACTLY right and 100% fact and all that you have from VX says that LAX may someday equal SFO but that ISN'T YET. So I propose that when they come back and say their prediction has materialized and change the website to say based in SFO AND LAX then we add it. Just not right now.
  • Ben Mutzbaugh goes out of his way to say that VX says they don't don't hubs and FC's at all technically at this point although their website calls SFO a base. Also, it is isn't him I'm calling unreliable. He lists LAX a FC in his guide and cites Virgin America and his citation, Virgin America, doesn't have the information he claims to have gotten from them. He also lists TPA still as an FC for Delta and it definitely isn't.
  • I'd be willing to send the email to VX for clarification if you all would allow me and don't think voting is the right approach. But I've assumed since none of you have been willing that you don't want their official title for the city anyway. Am I wrong about that? Would you all be willing to OK me doing that and posting the exchange here to help us get an official word? Let me know. I've requested informal mediation because I think we need a third party and I'd rather have somebody who is on all sides with us so none of us, including me, has to argue and we come to what I really want to be a peaceful solution to this dispute. 45Factoid44 (talk) 02:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
You can go ahead and contact them, but I'm not sure exactly how it would be possible to reference that. It might be classified as original research as it wouldn't be published anywhere but somebody more versed in referencing might be better suited to answer that question. Yes, the LA Times article talks about how LAX may someday equal SFO, but that just means LAX can't be considered a primary hub. The fact that VX is cited in the article as saying LAX is a city of interest to me means that LAX can at minimum be classified as a focus city. But, again, Virgin America cannot be considered the only reliable source of information for this issue. Indeed it would be easier if they said something on their website, but we can't take an omission of such a title to be an indication that such a title does not exist. NcSchu(Talk) 04:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
...Especially considering that VX claimed that VX would not be a hub-and-spoke airline. While a simple glance at their route map shows that it didn't end up this way (at least so far), it might not be appropriate for VX to make a statement that could (and would) be reproduced publicly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
That makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever. If the company says they are not a hub and spoke airline then they are not a hub and spoke airline. I think it's funny that would resist a VX statement because the facts might go against your oppinion when it is the facts that matter here not your opinion. An encyclopedia is not an opinion repository. It's no wonder that most copmanies and educational institutions don't consider Wikipedia a legitimate source with people like yourself reasoning this way. That's absurd. 45Factoid44 (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
"Not a hub-and-spoke airline" doesn't mean they don't have a hub. And we aren't even arguing about hubs. HkCaGu (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes if they said they don't have hubs and spokes then......drum roll.....they DON'T HAVE HUBS AND SPOKES. You're incredibly off the mark there on that one. You can't just decide in your head that an airline has a hub somewhere or a focus city for that matter and have it magically become so. And 4 cities in this case definitely doesn't qualify. This is so obviously clear and it amazes me that the two of you don't get it and just continue to just be oblivious to the fact. 45Factoid44 (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty irrelevant what the airline says. OpenSkies says it isn't an airline... NcSchu(Talk) 00:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The about page at flyopenskies.com says "We're working to be the best little airline we can be." Enough said. How long does it take to get assigned a mediator? Everything I've heard today is just absolutely absurd. There's no point in continuing until we have begun mediation. P.S.:The new T3 that you speak of doesn't fit in too well with the New North Gates mentioned here. 45Factoid44 (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Here's an even better set of diagrams and pictures from the LAX Masterplan itself from LAWA that disproves your new T3 VX hub. 45Factoid44 (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Anything regarding terminal plans is pretty much original research unless the plan for some reason says 'VIRGIN AMERICA HUB OMG!'. I see a lot of ridiculous arguments on this page from both sides, but nothing today is related to the topic, really, so let's get back on topic, please. NcSchu(Talk) 02:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, also, I just decided to take a look at those links since I got a sudden engineering-gasm, and they're dated from 2004, so Virgin America didn't exist yet. Doh! NcSchu(Talk) 02:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
That's a legitimate response as the plans have not been altered and are still posted in 2008 after Virgin America has come into existance. The point is that despite VX, they haven't changed the plans so forum postings about VX and their own T3 aren't very likely which shows just one more weak spot in the arguments that you all have been making. Also, the absurdities coming from you all today are just as on topic as they've ever been(nothing new) so I don't know why you'd say. Oh, and it's DUH, not "doh." LOL. The longer this goes on the more damage you do to yourselves . 45Factoid44 (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The fact that you don't get the point, any point, that anybody said today, and combined with your past behavior, shows that you are not capable of tying all aspects together to judge something. For the past two weeks, you've only launched one point after another (but never together) as proofs of your opinion. We've tried to tie everything together for you, but you don't get it. I hate to get personal, but I must, to make it easy to understand for the over-casual readers. HkCaGu (talk) 04:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
If anybody doesn't get it it is the ones who have commented and been refuted by me today. The casual readers won't have a problem understanding. They'll just have a nice laugh about the fact that you're so naive and lacking common sense in this discussion. Remember...we've had just as many people take my position as yours so I'm not just the loner who doesn't understand. 45Factoid44 (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that really is ridiculous. You're claiming that something made in April 2004, before even the announcement of the airline was made, can prove that Virgin America has no influence at LAX, which even if you were able to make such a connection would not actually prove that the airline didn't want to focus on LAX as a destination of interest. It's original research to say that because they haven't been updated that VX doesn't have any interest in the airport, especially when we do have a recent amendment to the terminal allocations that shows VX does in fact have a large influence in the new terminal. I mean, what's next? Pulling some article from 2004 to say Virgin America doesn't exist? Jeez. NcSchu(Talk) 13:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
You ignore my rationale and just keep throwing your same arguments out there as if I haven't just proven them wrong. The point is that the plan is still in place even though Virgin America is now in existance. If the plan was outdated it would have been removed! Also, a glance at almost any more recent document on the LAWA website which you can go look at yourself shows that the plan is still being carried out. There is also a document that says that Virgin America is simply touching up their side of terminal 3 before the gate moves take place. A paint job from August to October is not even remotely close to what you people were talking about. It's all there on the website just go look. VX alone is not influecing or building ANY new or even fully renovated terminal. They are just preparing their gate areas before they move and the rest of the terminal won't change and that's probably because the larger project of which the TBIT and the theme building portions are already started, will eventually overtake it. LOOK AT THE BIGGER PICTURE! IT HELPS!45Factoid44 (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
But how can they be moving their gates into terminal 3 when the link you posted doesn't show them in terminal 3? It's more than "preparing their gate area". They are using the same architect as JetBlue is using for T5 at JFK. It is a big remodel, and it will be done this month (and VX is paying for it). Why don't you just leave the page frozen for another couple of weeks and I'll post some pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The final product will be done in phases they will temporarily refurbish the gates they want in T3 to get more space like AA did interim improvements in Nashville at the old terminal for their hub and then ultimately they will be consumed by the new North Gates. Aside from a forum posting you haven't provided any sources on the Jetblue thing and I think you may be getting confused with VX's entire gut and rebuild project for T2 in San Francisco on that point. T3 at LAX can't become like Jetblue's new terminal at JFK in a mere 3 or 4 months. It's taken them 2 or more years at JFK to accomplish what they have there. This is just strictly the gates. Heres the memo I'm drawing this conclusion from. Also, if you go look up the SFO project and compare gates,etc. on the two final products SFO is definitely bigger. 45Factoid44 (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
After a second glance at the document it says the refurbishments will only take four to six weeks which is even shorter than the time frame I mentioned above. Definitely not like the SFO or JFK projects. Nothing as big as you talk about could be finished that fast. Impossible in my opinion. But if you think I'm wrong and can source it I'll give you the benefit of the doutb while you attempt to do that. 45Factoid44 (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I suppose the finished product will speak for itself (not that it stands on its own as the determining factor in this dispute). Ron Schnell 21:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs)
True 45Factoid44 (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Based on the fact that we have still not recieved a mediator and it has been another week and the protection is likely to best postponed again without a solution, I am going back to the Aviation project pages again to see if we can get help from them in either giving us a majority vote or paving us a new route to a consensus because I'm sure we're all ready to just go ahead and be done with this. 45Factoid44 (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Somethings to consider

Since you don't have a mediator yet, I am going to suggest somethings to consider in the hope that it may help you find a consensus. I may or may not drop in here again since I have a bunch of other things I'm working on.

Consider the fact that at this time, the airline only has service to seven airports. That means that at most you can only fly to six locations. This number may simply be too low to classify anything as a secondary hub or a focus city. Maybe this discussion is simply too early. If I recall correctly when Southwest started they flew between three cities. Does that mean that they had three focus cities? Maybe the consensus could be that at this time there are simply not a sufficient number of cities to make a declaration of a focus city? If you have only one hub can you have a focus city? I'll quote from that article with this from the opening sentence; 'a focus city is a location that is not a hub, but from which the airline has non-stop flights to several destinations other than its hubs.' Note that last word which many would take to mean that you need at least two hubs before you can have a focus city.

Good luck. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Those were my original concerns if you look in what was the original mini discussion on this issue, but after reading a considerable amount of articles pertaining to Virgin America and Los Angeles it seems Virgin Group, and, in particular, Virgin America, is making a concerted effort at building up LAX. Also, in addition to number of routes, I think we should find out information on number of flights per day/per week. I've tried to find out such information but as of yet have not come up with anything. NcSchu(Talk) 15:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
If you want to say that 7 cities is too small a sample to determine anything, I'm fine with that. But you also must remove SFO as a hub as well in that case, or I'm not fine with that. I'll post the numbers of flights per week in a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


Here are the number of departures for all airports per week:

SAN - 28

LAS - 31

IAD - 36

SEA - 47

JFK - 59

LAX - 111

SFO - 164

Here's the breakdown:

sfo-sea fr=4x sa=3x su=3x mo=4x Tu=3x We=3x Th=4x

sfo-las FR=5x Sa=4x Su=6x Mo=4x Tu=3x We=3x Th=5x

sfo-lax fr=7x sa=6x su=6x mo=5x tu=5x we=6x th=5x

sfo-jfk fr=4x sa=3x su=4x mo=3x tu=3x we=2x th=4x

sfo-san fr=5x sa=3x su=4x mo=4x tu=4x we=4x th=4x

sfo-iad fr=3x sa=3x su=3x mo=2x tu=2x we=3x th=3x

sfo total 164

lax-sea fr=3x sa=3x su=4x mo=3x tu=3x we=3x th=4x

lax-jfk fr=5x sa=3x su=5x mo=4x tu=4x we=5x th=5x

lax-sfo fr=7x sa=6x su=6x mo=6x tu=5x we=5x th=5x

lax-iad fr=3x sa=2x su=3x mo=2x tu=2x we=2x th=3x

lax total 111

sea-lax fr=4x sa=3x su=3x mo=4x tu=3x we=3x th=3x

sea-sfo fr=4x sa=3x su=3x mo=4x tu=3x we=3x th=4x

sea total 47

iad-lax fr=3x sa=2x su=3x mo=2x tu=2x we=2x th=3x

iad-sfo fr=3x sa=3x su=3x mo=2x tu=2x we=3x th=3x

iad total 36

san-sfo fr=4x sa=3x su=4x mo=5x tu=4x we=4x th=4x

san total 28

las-sfo fr=5x sa=3x su=7x mo=4x tu=4x we=3x th=4x

las-jfk fr=1x sa=1x su=1x mo=1x th=1x

las total 31

jfk-las fr=1x sa=1x su=1x mo=1x tu=1x

jfk-lax fr=5x sa=3x su=5x mo=5x tu=4x we=4x th=5x

jfk-sfo fr=4x sa=4x su=3x mo=4x tu=2x we=2x th=4x

jfk total 59

Ron Schnell 05:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs)

I'm ready to go with what Vegaswikian said under the conditions Aviators gave if you are. I would feel very comfortable with that. Considering that in a year or two they will have 30 cities and both the aiport projects done, the answers would probably be alot more obvious then. We were smart to seek outside oppinions. 45Factoid44 (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
In fact if we do go with it I'll put in an unprotect request for both Virgin America and LAX tonight. 45Factoid44 (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
You aren't the sole person in charge of this page; just because you agree with something doesn't mean it's time to remove the protection. Frankly, I don't see what evidence we have to say an airline with only seven destinations can't have a hub (when Virgin America itself and numerous sources support the fact that it is the airline's hub/base of operations). I really would not be okay with removing that. While Vegaswikian's argument is logicial, it isn't based on anything but another Wiki page, which is not a reliable source, by the way. NcSchu(Talk) 23:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It ISN'T JUST ME! Vegaswikian held that belief as a third party and so did Aviators99. Do you just want to stay around for months and have a tantrum or do you want to COMPROMISE and be done with this ridiculous mess???? I'm fed up with every time we near a solution you come around and invalidate everything it stands on! It's TIME TO GET THIS DONE. 45Factoid44 (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that Vegaswikian only added suggestions to come to a consensus. There have been many more users involved with this page and giving a deadline of a few hours is very unrealistic for people to give their opinions. It's not my problem that the people wishing to remove this seem to have absolutely nothing solid to stand on. It's my job to point that out. NcSchu(Talk) 23:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
You yourself have used the Wikipedia definition and stood by it so it can't now be false since someone else is using it in a way that isn;t 100% your oppinion. You're the only one of those who still see it fit to waste their time in this debate who disagrees at this point and considering that we CAN'T AGREE OTHERWISE, we need to TAKE a suggestion at consensus and COMPROMISE rather than shoot down every one that comes down the road. We can't just do this forever. If we don't agree now after three weeks of attempts I am going to request formal mediation and drag ever administrator I can find in here until we get past your complete unwillingness to accept any other point of view or compromise and end this. Your choice ! 45Factoid44 (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
An administrator has actually already 'voted' in this little debate on the side of keeping the information in...but I'd be okay with formal mediation, I just stand by my opinion. The point of consensus over voting is that the side with the most solid argument supporting their claims wins. You have had probably the most unstable argument during this whole thing and pretty much change your argument every time you respond, so I really don't know why you expect me to somehow agree with you all of a sudden. You haven't provided any reason for me to change my opinion. The situation now is still the same, except you simply want people to agree with you for a completely new reason. With respect, Aviators99 said he wouldn't see the focus city removed without hub removed, he didn't say let's give up and remove everything, if I understand his response correctly. But can we please not have another back and forth? That really won't accomplish anything. You're being completely hypocritical, attacking me for not wanting to compromise and then basically saying it's your way or out. Convince me you are right with actual support and facts and I'll agree with you. I'm man enough to admit I'm wrong and have done so in plenty of debates before. NcSchu(Talk) 00:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
How do we get the IP guy to sign to give consent. We have no way of getting in contact with him since he is an AOL IP user. All parties have to accept invitations for formal mediation. This is a problem in itself. 45Factoid44 (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Filing an arbitration request. 45Factoid44 (talk) 01:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
The request is here for Abitration. 45Factoid44 (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Virgin America a hub operation or point-to-point operation?

I can find no evidence that Virgin America's operations out of SFO are a "hub" operation, but rather it is seems it is more of a point-to-point operation, in which case the infobox should be changed to "bases" not "hubs". To see how this is done, look at Polar Airlines or Druk Air. The airline itself says that SFO is an operational base - a base does not equal a hub. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 02:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd be quite okay with re-labeling hubs to bases; I didn't realize such a title existed. NcSchu(Talk) 06:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I think this is the crux of the issue. Virgin America styled itself as a point-point carrier specializing in the transcontinental market. It can be compared with an early jetblue with its solitary hub and limited extra services. Maybe consider SFO a focus city and primary base of operations?Synchronism (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
This would be a great fit for SFO, but not LAX, and if we don't list LAX, then Aviators99 wants SFO off as well. It's the basis of whether LAX is there or not that keeps snagging the progress here and is the root of the original dispute. So what would the next step in handling that part be? 45Factoid44 (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, as you can see from the frequencies and routes listed above, LAX and SFO are clearly different from the other cities in some way.Ron Schnell 20:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, if there'd be agreement on that description of SFO, then why wouldn't LAX be considered just a focus city?Synchronism (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I honestly don't see why not. Aside from personal opinions of editors, there are numerous sources to back up the fact that LAX is distinctive from all other VX destinations (aside from SFO, obviously). I haven't seen a shred of solid evidence that discounts these sources, like I keep on saying. NcSchu(Talk) 22:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Because of what me, vegaswikian, and all those who voted against it above have already said. Changing what we call SFO which isn't the content in dispute he does nothing towards solving the problem. 45Factoid44 (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
It might be easier to just say in the description that Virgin is a point-to-point carrier which is headquartered in SFO and large in both SFO and LAX and therefore we remove it issue with the fact that LAX is not technically named as a focus city by VX and the opinnion would be acceptable there in my oppinion. I think vegaswikian is right in saying that the airline should mature more before we do the formal infobox listings for hubs and focus cities. Aviators99 agreed with vegaswikian on that point as well. 45Factoid44 (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Well then that's a problem to take up with the infobox formatting. NcSchu(Talk) 22:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
You wouldn't change the infobox. You would just keep SFO and LAX in the description until we all felt like they were ready to go into the two infobox fields as the airline gets bigger which is something that once what the LATimes expects to happen has happened in full I would be OK with. 45Factoid44 (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to compromise with this. 45Factoid44 (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm just pointing out that Infoboxes are meant to be sort of a quick-look for the article with pertinent information. It might be a good idea to bring up the idea of improving some of the fields to make them less specific. NcSchu(Talk) 23:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The airline seems to portray both operations equally as evidenced by their route map [1]. I thought corporate HQ (at least initially) was in NY City, while operations were based at SFO . The infobox should just treat them same and discuss the nuances in the article.

I believe the original plan was to have, as you said, two headquarters, one in NYC and one in SFO, but it was changed. NcSchu(Talk) 23:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to come into this entire discussion so late.Synchronism (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The official route map at virginamerica.com doesn't give a bigger dot to SFO and LAX, all the dots are the same size. 45Factoid44 (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
They have also grown since the map you linked to so SFO and LAX have more of a gap in their respective offering numbers as well. 45Factoid44 (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Should we just have another survey per wp:dispute resolution and go with the results? 45Factoid44 (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
That's an interactive map though. Nonetheless, in that map they could've written those two cities in CAPS like some do with their hubs on interactive maps. What would the alternative(s) to listing them both as focus cities be?Synchronism (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
We need to lay off the idea that virginamerica.com is the only source that can be used, as I've been trying to say all along. NcSchu(Talk) 23:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree that VA isn't the be-all end-all in sourcing this article. Also, there are frequency differences, great and small, between almost any airline's focus cities, like Jetblue or the hubs of Southwest. Part of the problem is that "Focus City" is not an official term like hub, yet describing VA's major operations as hubs might be misleading. Just looking at the frequencies above for LAX it's not easy for me to think of an arguement for how they are not significant for an airline of its size.Synchronism (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that's been part of the problem all along. It's very rare for airlines to indicate explicitly which hubs they have in the public view, and even rarer for them to mention less-than-hubs, ie. focus cities. It's rarer even still to find explicit mentions of focus cities in news articles (try a google news search and see how many relevant results turn up). And I think another problem has been being stuck on the wording 'focus city' or 'secondary hub' or what have you. This is a problem with the infobox formatting, not a reason to exclude that such a lesser definition for LAX's status in Virgin America's route system doesn't exist. But we seem to be solving the latter problem. NcSchu(Talk) 23:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Virgin_America/Archive_1&oldid=1154651440"