Jump to content

Talk:Virgin America/Archive 2

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

Dispute

Per the lack of ability to have a discussion, survey, get an informal mediator, get NcSchu to accept to any third part oppinion because they go against his oppinions, apply for formal mediation, and get arbitration...I intend to abandon the article and the dispute if we do not have a sure fire and clear cut path to resolve by Monday. If this means the article stays protected for weeks or months than so be it but if we can't achieve the afforementioned goal I'm out! Thanks. 45Factoid44 (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you issue a response without uncivil attacks? I haven't seen any case of you accepting third party opinion because they go against yours and the last time I checked I was entitled to my own! NcSchu(Talk) 06:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I have little or no connection to this article at all, but I think the Personal Attacks need to stop. There are multiple violations of WP:NPA, nothing will ever be accomplished if users can't work together. I think all users involved in this should take a look at WP:BAN, and take into consideration that if these attacks continue, there could be dire consequences. So I urge you all to please follow WP:CIV, and cease the attacks. -Marcusmax (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I just accepted the most recent third party attempt with open and non-violent arms and NcSchu is the one who didn't accept it and accused me of trying to run the article saying I was the only one who agreed with the adive when Aviators99 had already agreed conditionally to it as well and I willingly agreed his conditions too. So I hardly think you can just pin that on me. And yea I will leave this hung out to dry if we don't have a fool proof path to consensus and compromise by tommorrow and you all can deal with it yourselves. There are plenty other people out there that hold my opinnion that could keep a balanced debate going and lately all the advice says that maybe it isn't time to list LAX yet so this will just be your problem I guess. There are too many other important things in my life to continue spending this much time on this. 45Factoid44 (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
It really doesn't help the situation when you just blame other people for something that everyone needs to consider. I'm tired of being accused of being this evil person who's out to take control of this page when I've done no such thing. NcSchu(Talk) 22:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have let the protection expire as the page had been fully protected for nearly 2 weeks and it may well have been getting in the way of constructive edits outside this dispute. It looks like the request for arbitration may be declined, so all I can suggest is to continue with mediation and to avoid making edits to the article which may be controversial for the moment. I will keep an eye on things here in the meantime. Camaron | Chris (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I wash my hands of this. Don't care what you do. More important things for me to be involved in. Do not contact me any longer regarding this issue. 45Factoid44 (talk) 04:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
See the comments on my talk page, but you are free to do as you wish. Hopefully that this is now under mediation I hope it can be resolved peacefully anyway, but I will keep an eye on things as an independent of this dispute for now. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Medcab

In reviewing the article, its talk page, and the MEDCAB request before accepting this request, I note that tempers are running high here.

Mediation requires that all parties engage, in good faith, to seek out a solution to their differences. It cannot work if we bring prior animosity into the equation.

Mediation is also not always about finding some halfway house between differing points of view. In some cases one side may have to accept that the other side is substantially correct in their views.

Mediation provides an outside opinion, from another editor who has no strong views on the particular article, and tends to concentrate on the extent to which the various positions held by the editors in dispute are compatible with Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines. Having done so, it facilitates negotiation on differences where policies leave some "wiggle room"

Mediation is also very much governed by the style of the Mediator, and different mediators use different styles. If the parties don't find my style helpful, I will gladly withdraw in favour of another mediator!

In running a mediation, I have a few "rules";

  1. In order to keep discussion focussed, and to avoid any temptation to diatribes, I will often ask that parties respond only to direct questions from the mediator, rather than free discusssion.
  2. I may ask that responses be of a limited length.
  3. I may ask that parties do not respond to statements made by others.
  4. I insist that we abide by WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF
  5. If anybody breaks a "rule" I may strike their comments from the discussion

As a first step in this mediation, I would like to invite all those named as parties to this mediation to consider whether they are happy to continue with a mediation under the regime that I outline. Providing that at least 5 indicate their assent, and that no more than 1 declines, we will continue. Please indicate your assent or dissent by signing the appropriate section below;

Mayalld (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC) (Medcab mediator)

Accept

Decline

Official Callsign/ICAO Code

Redwood is the callsign, ICAO codes is VRD..see [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phoenix2 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

OK, We seem to have sufficient agreement to proceed.

I've spent some time trying to educate myself on the issues, and I think I'm ready to go. If I make an error, I'm always ready to step back and fix it.

I intend to cover bitesize chunks in subsections. Given the number of participants, we can regard silence as assent. Objections or comments should be;

  1. Limited to a single comment of no more than 30 words
  2. Restricted to comments on what I've written rather than other users comments.

Mayalld (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Just adding a note that, in order to keep things moving, and in line with silence is assent, having put something up here, I intend to wait 24 hours in each case before assuming assent, and moving on. Late comments will always be taken into account, but we may have to backtrack a bit to accomodate them! Mayalld (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Relevant Policies

Regardless of what we may try to thrash out here, we are ultimately bound to find a solution which complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The relevant policies and guidelines here are;

  • WP:V - Anything that we put in the article must be verifiable.
  • WP:RS - The sources used to verify facts must be reliable sources.
  • WP:OR - At the risk of repeating the above, we cannot include content that is original research, and that isn't published elsewhere
  • WP:SYNTH - We also can't use two sources taken together to synthesise a conclusion.
comments

Your comments are invited

The use of the terms

  • Broadly speaking, for a particular airline, an airport may be;
    • A primary hub
    • A secondary hub
    • A focus city
    • A destination
  • The distinction between these clasification is not entirely hard and fast, and it will often be unclear whether an airport belongs in one category or another.
  • A secondary hub is an alternate title for a large focus city
comments

Your comments are invited

The particular case

  • The disagreement is focused around whether LAX is a primary hub, secondary hub or a focus city.
  • Considering the company route map, connecting flights are shown at both SFO and LAX. This tells us that LAX is at least a focus city (although this is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH)
  • All destinations can be reached from the primary hub at SFO. This tends to suggest that LAX is not a primary hub (although this is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH)
  • There is no evidence that LAX is a point where customers transfer to smaller regional aircraft to continue their journey, and it would appear that LAX is simply an alternate routing point. This tends to suggest that LAX is more than just an ordinary focus city (although this is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH)

As the route map stands at present, it seems clear that LAX sits slap bank in the grey area between Secondary hub and Focus city (which is why we end up with a dispute.

However, all the above is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. LAX is clearly and undisputably a focus city (suffciently clearly that we can probably dispense with any need to source it). No matter how convinced anybody may be from their own analysis that it is a secondary hub, policy requires that we source this, rather than conclude it.

comments

Your comments are invited

  • I added the sources that we have that seem to support the idea that LAX is more than just a normal destination. Only one of them explicitly lists LAX as a focus city and two of them are blogs (albeit one backed by USA Today), but there's a problem in this case related to the infrequent use of such terminology by mainstream sources. NcSchu(Talk) 15:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Added more articles to indicate next hub is more likely NYC than LAX, VX wants to be big in all its cities making it harder desig. focus cities, VX's only "operational base" is SFO right now, and the terminal project at LAX is temporary and tiny compared to the one at SFO. Also, the USAToday article cites VX itself which doesn't call LAX what the USAToday does and the LATimes source is about the future situation rather than the present. Indeed mainstream sources on calling it a focus city are lacking and original research is not allowed. 96.5.66.240 (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that the dispute is properly stated. It has been stated as if it's a dispute between whether LAX is a focus city or a secondary hub. In reality, nobody has mentioned secondary hub in a while, and the dispute has really been whether it's just a normal station or a (focus city or secondary hub). If the mediator believes that it is at least a focus city (which the article currently says), I think there's nothing to mediate. I was really the only one claiming it is a secondary hub, and still believe so, but am satisfied with it being called a focus city.Ron Schnell 02:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The heart of the matter is in fact over whether LAX is a regular station or a focus city rather than a secondary hub or focus city and the most recently added of the sources serve to put into question LAX's focus city status and not whether or not it deserves an upgrade to the hub listing. 96.5.66.240 (talk) 04:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC) struck out by moderator as being a second comment from the same contributor, and for commenting on what another user has said
  • Sources that are dated previous to 2007, as I note a few of the recent ones are, are pretty much irrelevant given the airline hadn't launched operations yet. These violate WP:SYNTH and WP:OR given the original conclusions being made about them. NcSchu(Talk) 04:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC) struck out by moderator as being a second comment from the same contributor, and for commenting on what another user has said
  • One makes no mention of the airline. However, the others are all either after the launch or about the launch with the most being the former. The one that doesn't make mention is a plan that has remained in place after the launch even though it was drawn up before it. Feel free to disregard that one though if need be as it is least crucial to the point being made. 96.5.66.240 (talk) 05:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC) struck out by moderator as being a third comment from the same contributor, and for commenting on what another user has said
  • The terms of the moderation were that participants must not comment on each others comments, and must make only a single comment in response to each section. As such, several comments have been struck. The rules also said maximum of 30 words, but I don't propose to get excessively picky here! Mayalld (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Mayalld, can you comment on the fact that we all seem to agree that the dispute has been misstated, and perhaps re-state it or call it closed?Ron Schnell 07:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs)
  • Yes, I will revise later on (a bit busy for the next few hours!) Mayalld (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Great. After which, I suggest you simply call for any dissent (and I believe you will have none). Ron Schnell 14:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs) struck out by mediator

Sources

As sources are added, I will comment on what they tell us, and flag them as follows;

  • - Reliable source which supports the view of LAX as a focus city
  • - Source which supports the view of LAX as a focus city, but may not meet WP:RS
  • - Source which doesn't actually say anything relevant to the question
  • - Unable to access the source
  • - Source which supports the view that LAX is not a focus city

Participants are invited to add relevant sources that might decide the issue here

  1. http://www.lacity.org/lawa/bac_agendas/lawabac_agendas27154703_07282008.pdf - Discusses a terminal move by VA, and a proposal to increase flights, but is inconclusive on the status of LAX
  2. http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/item.aspx?type=blog&ak=54287968.blog&csp=34 - States that LAX is a focus city
  3. http://crankyflier.com/2008/09/09/virgin-americas-impending-growth-spurs-lax-terminal-shifts/ - Discusses terminal move, but inconclusive on status
  4. http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/03/business/fi-virginamerica3 - Suggests that Virgin are looking to make LAX a second hub, but per WP:CRYSTAL that isn't enough
  5. http://www.fdimagazine.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/984/US:_Virgin_America_92s_location_of_its_dual_headquarters_in_New_York_and_San_Francisco.html - Suggests that in 2004 Virgin saw NY as its second city. However this is a stale source, that has clearly been overtaken by events (and the status of LAX is not affected by the status of NY)
  6. http://www.laxmasterplan.org/docs/final_mp/029_Appendix%20H_Part_02_of_02.pdf
  7. http://www.lawa.org/AirOps/brief/wcb080908-080914.pdf
  8. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/18/BA0U130LDA.DTL - Doesn't refer to the status of LAX
  9. http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2008/06/23/story9.html - Doesn't refer to the status of LAX
  10. http://www.virginamerica.com/va/images/aboutus/virgin-america-corporate-fact-sheet.pdf - Makes no statement either way as to the status of LAX
  11. http://airporthelper.com/lax - hover over the Virgin America link, and it says "LAX is a hub city" (added by mediator)

Trying again

OK, so it appears that I misread the opinions of some here. WP:IAR gives us leave to dispense with the strict "letter of the law" need to source everything, and allows us to take certain uncontroversial statements as read, in the absence of any objection. As it is now apparent that the view that LAX is a focus city is not uncontroversial, we must look for sources.

I cannot escape from my own "first impressions", as an outsider, previously unfamiliar with the terminology that LAX is a Focus City, but that is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, so sourcing is the answer.

As such, I've reviewed the list of sources that have already been provided, and tried to assess them as to reliability, and whether they tell us anything relevant.

The answer is that they give us a lot of background, but do little to directly answer the vital question, without WP:SYNTH.

As things stand, one single source has been produced that seems reliably to say that LAX is a focus city. None of the others help us one way or another on this question.

That leaves us in a position where, in the short term whilst we are trying to sort this out, it is reasonable to show LAX as a Focus City, rather than battling over it in the article. In the longer term, it would need to be better sourced to stay.

So, the hunt is on for better sources on both sides. Sources need to be explicit, they need to be reliable, and they need to be recent. Please add them to the list above, but without any symbol (I will add the symbols when I've checked out the sources) Mayalld (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

As more destinations are added, hopefully LAX's role will become clearer (though funny enough if ORD gets approved it will initially be from both SFO and LAX). However I will state again the difficult in finding explicit sources in periodicals given the, if you will, nerdiness of the word. NcSchu(Talk) 15:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
It is clear that this is an infant organisation, and that as routes develop, the status will change, possibly regularly. That is why we need recent sources. I appreciate that finding sources is going to be difficult, but in the absence of sources, the article cannot make the claim. Mayalld (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm making a sincere effort to find more sources that support listing it, but they're definitely not in short order, and you should also look at the the source the USAToday article used as their source doesn't state what they claim in their article which makes me believe it to be more original research than fact. 96.5.66.240 (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with newspaper people doing original research. That's their job. WP:OR means we shouldn't do it here, not that they shouldn't do it there. HkCaGu (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Review

We've been sat without really moving forward for some days now, and without any of the participants bringing any new sources to the table. I have added a single source that I found, and assessed all the sources. It doesn't appear that anybody has any further sources for us to consider, so we need to move on to consider what we have on the table, and see whether we can move to a general agreement. Each of the sections below is open for any participant (whether previously declared or not) to comment. Comments must be no more than 60 words in length, each respondent is allowed only one comment, and comments must be a direct response to the section, rather than a response to other comments. Any comments that fail to comply may be struck by the mediator. Mayalld (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Principles

  1. It is not open to us to concoct any solution that isn't in accordance with Policies and Guidelines. In particular, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.
  2. That doesn't prevent us coming to an agreement on how a generalised policy or guideline works in a specialised area.
  3. Whilst the participants in this mediation have strongly held and divergent views, they are all attempting, in good faith, to improve this article.
  4. Edit wars are a negative process, and do not improve articles.
  5. The terms Focus City and Hub are technical descriptions used in the "aviation world"
  6. The terms are often used by airlines, but are equally often used about airlines, and it is entirely possible that the industry and the airline may disagree, having a different view of the terms. In such cases, the view of the secondary source has more weight.
  7. The default position, absent reliable sources is that a destination is not a focus city or hub.
  8. We cannot use sources to drawe our own conclusions based on definitions of focus cities etc, but must rely on explicit statements about a city in the source.
  9. Sources that attest to the importance of some other city have no bearing on the status of LAX
  10. The reliability of a source is a function of it independence, and general reputation. It is not determined by testing its conclusions against the conclusions of Wikipedia Editors.
  11. This is a young airline, and still growing. It is likely that it will be some time before the mature state of its network becomes apparent. In the intervening time, the status of cities may change regularly.
Comments

Sources

Of the 11 sources listed, two were not accessible. Seven are, in my opinion, not relevant, because they rely on synthesis, and two are reliable sources that LAX is a focus city.

Participants are invited to comment if they believe my assessment is incorrect. Please refer to sources by number

Comments

Conclusions

  1. Given the state of flux, it is impossible to draw long-term conclusions, and as such it is better that we find a way of reviewing this regularly going forward
  2. At the present time, there is JUST enought reliably sourced evidence that LAX is a focus city to justify its inclusion.
  3. A relatively small change to the route map may make this conclusion untenable, and it would be appropriate to briefly revisit the question periodically. Such a process might upgrade, downgrade, or make no change to the status.
  4. To avoid this question overtaking the article, we shouldn't revisit it more often than once every three months
  5. The rapidly changing landscape means that it is inappropriate that we spend excessive time on deciding the question, as if we do so, the world will move again before we decide.
  6. At all times, the default position should be that we maintain the status quo, unless somebody can bring forward a new reliable source that explicitly challenges the status quo.
  7. Changes to the status quo ought to be brought to the talk page because of the contentious nature of this question.
  8. In any case where the regulars are unable to reach an agreement rapidly (4 days from the first suggestion), the matter should be referred to WP:3, and all parties should accept the opinion received
Comments
  • (point 3) This should be obvious to all, but I think it prudent to mention that a relatively small change to the route map may also make this conclusion more justified, or may make a stronger conclusion (secondary hub? primary hub?) more tenable. The incipient inclusion of ORD to/from only LAX and SFO, for example. Future reviews should keep all options open. Ron Schnell 08:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I was aware that you were considering listing as a focus city because you said that you don't neccessarily need official documentation from the airline to do that since you say the focus city term is less formal but I would take issue with you calling it a hub because that is formal and I feel you need an official source from that airline if you were to make that designation instead. Why don't we apply the ORD addition to the focus city argument instead of escalating to hubs because that changes the whole dynamic again. 96.5.66.240 (talk) 03:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
    • We aren't considering calling it a hub at present. What we are saying is that as time goes on, the sources may point to either a downgrading or an upgrading.
    • Wikipedia generally requires secondary sources independent of the subject of the article, and we aren't in a position to change Wikipedia policy here. If independent sources say "hub" then we would include it, because Wikipedia is a distillation of what independent sources say about an organisation, not what the organisation says about itself. Mayalld (talk) 07:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I voice dissent over calling it a hub at present so it is good that the commentor before last clarified that for me. Focus City is the only reasonable result for me at this time if it must be included. As for secondary sources, I've looked at your hub source per the commentary that accompanied it temporarily on the list and I agree that it doesn't appear reputable. 96.5.66.240 (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Struck by mediator - one comment each please Mayalld (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Closing

For the reasons stated at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-05 Virgin America, I am closing this mediation as unsucessful. I regret that we haven't been able to sort this out, and wish you luck in dealing with the disruption to the article. Mayalld (talk) 10:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sad to hear what's happened with this case in the past day or two. I suggest the article be protected until the true extent of any sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry has been known. Afterwards the templates at the top of the article can probably be removed as I think consensus has been reached with only one user opposed. It's sad that a user is unable to accept consensus on this issue and even more sad if he resorted to creating multiple accounts in order to overcome the consensus. NcSchu(Talk) 16:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
This has become quite the dispute, although it seems like things are becoming more civil. There needs to be a clean, 3rd party source to indicate LAX is indeed a Focus City, if this is established or a source from thee VA website can establish that fact then it indeed is a focus city. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Well I think per Mayalld that has been established. NcSchu(Talk) 01:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there is no need to go through this all again. The civil participants are willing to abide by the mediator's conclusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Boston Added - LAX more frequency than SFO

VX has added SFO-BOS-SFO and LAX-BOS-LAX, with more frequency to/from LAX than SFO. I think the "focus city" label for LAX is now understated, and it should possibly be considered a primary hub. Ron Schnell 16:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's stick to what we have sources for, please. NcSchu(Talk) 17:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't change anything without a consensus (FYI). But I'm putting it out there for discussion.Ron Schnell 22:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs)
I think it would be good for anyone if we just leave this issue on the backburner for a few months. We don't need to revisit the situation every single time a destination is added. NcSchu(Talk) 00:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping we would abide by the mediator, and revisit every two months. The next time would be the beginning of January. I feel we should add material facts to the discussion page so that when we revisit, it is all in one place for reference.Ron Schnell 22:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs)

DirectAir flights (are they VX routes?)

NcSchu states that the DirectAir flights should not be placed in the body of the article, because they are "not VX routes". I claim that they are. For example, see http://flightaware.com/live/flight/VRD5814 to show that they use callsign "Redwood" (VRD). In addition, as mentioned, they use VX crew, VX livery, VX inflight branding, etc. The only part that is not VX is the reservation system and the gate agents. You may be able to convince me that it doesn't belong there, but please come up with a better argument. Ron Schnell 01:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs)

A wet-lease means that yes, crew, aircraft, interior, callsign, everything is leased over to another organization for temporary usage. Direct Air is a separate organization that doesn't own its own aircraft or doesn't have enough to cope with demand and uses other airline's aircraft, in this case VX, to compensate. Wet-leases are used when the organization also doesn't have enough resources available to 'stock' the aircraft with its own personel and branding. Can you book these Direct Air flights through Virgin America? No, which completely proves my point. The destinations section is for Virgin America destinations only, not Direct Air, that has its own article. NcSchu(Talk) 15:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, good enough. Ron Schnell 03:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs)

Expert Needed & Dispute Tag discussion(August 2009)

.

Could somebody employed by either LAX or VX confirm or deny whether LAX is in fact a hub, base, or focus city for VX? Thanks. We need an official resolution to this dispute. 68.52.42.38 (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
VX does not use the terminology, but that doesn't mean it has no hubs or FCs. See WP:DUCK. HkCaGu (talk) 07:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought we had a meditation for this in the previous 2 threads and it has been resolved (think??). 74.183.173.237 (talk) 07:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
HkCaGu is not said expert requested and your mediation never concluded but rather the mediator dropped it. Now we're going to finish it. Also, LAX only offers one other city on the West Coast now other than SFO for easterners to make connections to and the most recent PR about Ft. Lauderdale says that(and the route map backs this up) that all connecting service despite flights both to LAX and SFO is through SFO. I think that the current situation with that knowledge requires a renewed discussion. Plus in all of Wikipedia, more opinions matter than just the 2 or 3 involved in the prior mediation which I may add had numerous flaws in the way that it took place after going back and looking at it. Wikipedia is for everyone to edit and everyone has a right to be concerned, contribute, and discuss ;-) 68.52.42.38 (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Focus city has nothing to do with connections. The fact remains that LAX flies to every possible city except Las Vegas. That's what makes it a focus city. Now tell me what's changed. HkCaGu (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
LAX only serves one non-hub destination in the west and SFO serves five. Also, the connection thing is a change. Can we just leave the issue up for discussion for a little while and perhaps leave a note a project page asking for weigh-ins? I just want a fair shot and a fresh look like the last people got. I won't change anything in the article from its current state while that is taking place or rush it. I just want a few more opinions and if my concern proves invalid then that's fine. 68.52.42.38 (talk) 06:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
1. A hub may be for connection. A focus city isn't. And VX isn't targeting the connection market. The SFO hub simply means it flies everywhere from there, not necessarily connection like the legacy carriers.
2. You keep counting destinations in the west. It's irrelevant. LAX cannot possibly serve SNA and SAN. LAS is deemed to close to LAX. Why you should place any weight for the "west" is beyond me. HkCaGu (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Will you allow the additional third party commentary or not? I'm not going to come into this to argue a stalemate with you like the last folks. I won't argue at all. Actually, it's not really up to you to allow it because I don't need your permission. My real question is are you going to make it easy or hard on everybody? All I'm asking is to invite third party commentary and whichever way they go is the way I will support. I just want more input than yours and the two or three people that seem to religiously accompany you. 68.52.42.38 (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Your tag has stayed for a few days, so how am I now not allowing discussion? And you're accusing other people of "religiously accompanying" me. It seems that you cannot accept that the tide of consensus has failed to turn your way. HkCaGu (talk) 03:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
SNA, LAS, and SAN are all "LA Area" airports, so they would not be served from LAX, even as the HUB that it is. What you say about connections is simply not true. I just booked a flight from SEA-FLL, via LAX, right from their website. The fact that since the mediation they added both BOS and FLL, both *only* going to SFO *and* LAX lends more proof that LAX is a hub. Also (since the mediation), they announced ORD would be added from *BOTH* SFO *and* LAX, whenever it is added. I am (as I have been) willing to accept the term "focus city", although I strongly believe it to be a hub. As agreed when the previous mediation ended, if we have yet another mediation, I must insist that all three options are explored: focus city, hub, or nothing. I'm pretty sure it will come out as a hub. Ron Schnell 08:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I want a new group of fresh third part opinions above and beyond the three people who were involved last time which have so far been the only ones to comment and I will not back off until that happens because that's the beauty of Wikipedia :) I'll go ask for the third party advice myself and we'll just let that go ahead and get started and if we get an expert during that process then even better ;) Told you I wasn't here to get caught up in a bunch of argument or fight. 68.52.42.38 (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't care what you do, but check your facts before trying to solicit an opinion (example: your completely incorrect info about FLL connections).Ron Schnell 08:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The part of this debate that is always pathetic is the way these users pop out of the blue automatically with the assumption that they in fact are the experts and they know that LAX cannot possibly be one. I don't claim to know either, I just see that we have sources there that claim LAX is. These were verified as being reliable by an official WP mediator as seen above and nothing could be found to contradict the sources. I'm sorry you think different, but that's really quite irrelevant. Take your tantrum elsewhere. This topic doesn't need a tag as put on the main page because no legitimate claim has been made requiring reconsideration other than yet another person's private opinion that holds no water. If you can get an official from LAX or VX to state that LAX is not a focus city, hub or anything but a simple destination then great, but please don't waste our time with tags that make the information on the page look illegitimate because you simply want such a statement to prove your own agenda. NcSchu(Talk) 21:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

And there's the last of the three who always believe that they alone const. a consensus. And like I said, the mediation failed and never came to a conclusion since the mediator backed out. This is duly noted. Still waiting on fresh commentary above and beyond that. The new tag and a post on the Airline project will hopefully produce it. 68.52.42.38 (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, @68.52.42.38, the fact that you are soliciting other opinions is fine and dandy, but I would recommend that you don't go around posting the same/similar messages on a lot of discussions about subjects relating to Virgin America, as there is a very good chance your attempts will be regarded as spam. That being said, I have followed Virgin America closely for about a year and a half and I fly them reguarly... I can't say I'm an expert, but I can offer you my opinion based on all that I have read and seen over the last year and a half. Now, I've reviewed a bunch of documents on Virgin America's website, and there is no evidence that LAX is a hub or a focus city - only SFO is credited as a hub (or in their words, a principal hub). Despite this, I don't believe it is necessarily inaccurate or deceiving of Wikipedia to state that LAX is a focus city for Virgin America. From LAX, Virgin America flies to just about every destination the airline flies, except for the closest (and unviable) ones (Orange County, San Diego, Las Vegas). From some destinations, Virgin America actually flies more daily flights to LAX than SFO, and you can connect just as easily through LAX if you're from an East coast destination and want to fly to Seattle or Las Vegas (or vice versa), not to mention the fact that you can connect to one of V Australia's flights if you really wanted to. There's no denying the fact that Virgin America has a major operation at LAX rivaling the one at SFO, and I think that it's quite an understatement if you consider LAX to be one of Virgin America's "destinations". Unless an official from Virgin America comes out and says that LAX is not a focus city or hub, then I say it's perfectly all right to call LAX a focus city. Wickedlyperfect18 (talk) 06:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Not an expert, but adding a comment to this discussion. In the book, An Introduction to Airline Economics (O'Connor, William E. Greenwood Publishing, 2001. ISBN 9780275969110), the author diffentiates between a hub-and-spoke route structure and hub airports. Essentially, the author states that a hub-and-spoke route structure does not determine a hub airport, which is determined by traffic volume measured in passenger enplanements per year. The Encarta definition[2] agrees with the book, in that the nature of the hub is not dependent upon an individual airline's route structure. However, the dictionary used will affect the connotation of the definition.[3] SFO and LAX both meet the hub airport definition as posed by the book and Encarta dictionary, which appears to match FAA classification of airports based on legal definitions (USC 49).[4]
O'Connor also quotes several definitions of hub-and-spoke route structures, which apparently is what drives this current debate:

A hub and spoke system consists of a set of "spoke" routes flying to and from minor markets into major "hub" cities. The major airline which creates the hub and spoke system flies some of these spokes itself. Commuter, local, or smaller airlines whom the major airline has co-opted into the system fly other spokes. A set of much longer and heavier regional spokes connects major traffic hubs and are all operated by the creator of the system. Indeed, the traffic potential of the regional spokes is the reason behind the creation of the system.

— William O'Connor, An Introduction to Airline Economics, page 23
Nothing on the Virgin America website supports that the establishment of operations at LAX is to feed the LAX-SFO route operated by Virgin America. It is even harder to make the argument for a hub and spoke route structure since most of the destinations from LAX are also destinations from SFO. The other definition O'Connor quotes states:

The basic notion of a hub and spoke system is that flights from many different cities converge on a single airport—the hub—at approximately the same time, and after giving the passenger sufficient time to make connections, all then leave the hub airport bound for different cities. Such a convergence of flights on a hub is often called a "connecting complex" or "connecting bank".

— ibid.
Based on what I've read in the sources available online is that Virgin America targets routes with a high ratio of business travelers, which would virtually eliminate any argument for the company establishing hub-and-route structure versus a, "...point-to-point transcontinental business model," as stated by the company's CEO.[5] The only references to hub on the Virgin America website are from a Chicago Tribune article, and from pages discussing the CEO's experience. I think that arguing that SFO and LAX are hubs after the style of hub-and-spoke route structures does not stand up under the available definitions. --Born2flie (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Good research. However, I think the definitions you quote are a bit dated, or just not in synch with the realities of current hub-and-spoke systems. Surely, one would not argue that Delta has a hub in Atlanta, yet it would fail some of the same points you mention. Another point you make seems to disallow the notion of dual hubs, which obviously exist (while other points you mention seem to allow it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Your arguments are very vague, through the use of words like some, other, and another, etc.. Perhaps you could be more specific into which points, and how they are confusing or inadequate. To me, it appears that the information I've presented does not cooperate with your conclusions about the information you would like to present in this article. I didn't arrive intending to argue one way or another, I answered a request to the Aviation WikiProject in order to look at the situation to see if I could offer any other information, which I have. If you wish to define a hub as you see it, then you have to provide a reference from a verifiable, reliable source. In that regards, I apologize that I was not able to help you accomplish your goal. Out. --Born2flie (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll note that a quick google search will provide several reliable news sources that state SFO is VX's hub (I'm not going to go into the knowledge these sources have related to aviation terms since that really isn't our role); and, that the absence of hub information on Virgin America's website isn't to say that they do not exist. In fact as I think I've stated before somewhere on this page, Virgin America's 'About Us' page does list its base of operations as SFO. Though this isn't the same thing as saying it's a hub it's also not the same thing as saying it's simply the location of its corporate headquarters. There doesn't seem to be any similar up-to-date statement from the airline declaring that it does not run a hub and spoke operation. NcSchu(Talk) 18:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
If passengers get off the VX flight and get on another flight (then it is a hub), if passengers just go home or to work then it is not being used as a hub. A good sign that it is a hub is if the airline advertises connection or has code shares with other airlines. MilborneOne (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm joining this discussion in response to the requests placed on WP:AIR & WP:AVIATION. I concur with Born2Flie's assessment. I would also go a little further and observe that trying to define VA's operations in terms of a hub-and-spoke system constitutes original research in that it imposes a definition contrary to explicit and citable information on its own organizational approach. This is a case where a primary source can be expected to be very reliable – who would know better than they themselves. Most reliable secondary sources would be simply parroting the self-description (although it would be perfectly acceptable to use such a source instead, if you have one). NcSchu correctly pointed out (cf. his post of 18:49, 22 August 2009) that all VA does is list its "base of operations" as SFO. The fact that secondary sources sometimes imprecisely refer to this as a "hub" does not mean that VA is using something other than the "point-to-point transcontinental business model" they say they are using.
While a fair point can be made that LAX is a "focus city", the arbitrator clearly pointed out that this is nevertheless still founded on OR and synthesis. The fact is that when such is challenged, those editors wishing to keep it are obliged to source it or let it be removed – at least until such time as a reliable source can be found to substantiate it for reintroduction. Remember, Wikipedia essentially presents what others have published; it has no deadline and we are not responsible for capturing absolute truth – as per the opening paragraph of WP:V. It would therefore seem best to me to list only SFO as a hub and leave all else aside as speculation pending future information. (The fact that LAX is the second largest destination and point of origin of VA flights can be addressed in the text body.) Askari Mark (Talk) 22:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a well thought out point, and it's tough to argue against. If the point of WP is not to publish "truth", but only to collect what others have published, it is difficult to argue that it is okay to even state SFO is a hub. But there comes a point where the route diagram on the airline's own website speaks more than even the specific commentary by the airline itself. There are many reasons that an airline might avoid making an explicit statement about whether they utilize a hub-and-spoke, as opposed to point-to-point, many of which are political or parts of various negotiations. But nobody actually believes that executives sitting in a Virgin America board room don't call SFO a hub. I suppose that's why you think it's okay to include SFO as a hub, despite some very good arguments you make to the contrary.
I believe that LAX qualifies in the same way (with the same caveats), and don't understand why you would be okay with one and not the other. The route map looks almost the same from LAX, with the exception of the destinations that are too close to LAX to fly to.

Ron Schnell 19:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I’m not altogether against using “hub” for SFO. Correct me if I mis-remember, but I believe one of the sources does just that. I’m also aware that English is a sloppy language and people will often use imprecise language – especially in the absence of a precise, fits-all-cases definition – in a slang-wise fashion, as long as the gist of what is meant to be communicated is clear. In the case of an infobox, it’s hard to be precise anyway when the options cover only 95% of cases; the infobox is just a quick-look, and it’s the text that needs to define issues more precisely. If the editors here want to accept a consensus to use “hub” as a colloquial synonym for “base of operations”, that’s fine by me. It only draws on WP:IAR very slightly at worst. On the other hand, trying to define LAX as a hub or focus city without a whiff of reliable sourcing is clearing speculation, however educated the guesswork may be.
As for “WP is not TRVTH”, that was not my decision and it has never quite set well with me; I’m an engineer, so I prefer truth and accuracy by nature. Nonetheless, in dealing with contentious issues on Wikipedia over the last few years, I have come to develop an appreciation that it is a useful discussion boundary to place on editors to prevent (or, failing that, end) editwarring. Since Wikipedia has no deadline, the presumption is that reliable sources will appear eventually and the issue can (hopefully) be laid to rest at that time. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
It's also synthesis to use articles that explain differences in airline operations with a statement from a CEO stating that VX does not use a hub and spoke model. We do have explicit sources that support the contrary, however. And arguing that these sources 'don't know the correct terminology' is original research. Wikipedia also has explicit guidelines that sway against solely using a company's own statements as references in its own article. So far no secondary sources have been found to support the company's statement. This is my beef, yet no one ever addresses these basic problems that must be corrected. NcSchu(Talk) 12:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Of course, if we’re going to get down to wikilawyering, the assumption that common slang is never used in the place of accurate terminology would be OR. Look, there are two issues I see here: One is what to put in the text and what to put in the infobox. Since infobox templates are rather limited in their options, I think putting SFO there as a “hub” is okay. As for the text, you have reliable sources for what VA says and for what others say, right? Then just put in that “VA claims to be …, but XYZ identifies SFO as VA’s hub.” If you come up with a VA source that claims SFO as a hub, then the formula becomes “VA claims to be …, but also identifies SFO as its hub.” That’s the long and short of it, after all, and we are permitted to report what a subject says about itself (we just don’t have to take its word as the last word). Askari Mark (Talk) 02:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

LAX Focus City????

Another edit war regarding whether LAX is a focus city or not. Any comments?? Charmedaddict (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what's been the change since we last discussed this? A change in status should originate from a change in routes and markets, not a change of "people". HkCaGu (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
VX has never named LAX a focus city so I don't see how you could call it one. Every other airline with focus cities publishes at least one document of their own which lists them and that is not the case here. AA, CO, DL, US, UA, NW, SW, AirTran, JetBlue, Midwest, & Spirit have all done this making their focus cities easily citable when they have them but VX has only done this with their SFO base. If you can find me this missing piece of the puzzle then I'll happily oblige with your prior consensus. 76.22.201.164 (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
IND,DAY, and Akron-Canton aren't listed as Focus Cities for AirTran even though third party sources have called them that. Same with US Airways and Kansas City even though they had several non-hub US Airways Express routes. I just think that we should be consistent and uphold that same standard here.76.22.201.164 (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
You're not making sense here. All these airlines you listed publish their lists, and that's what we go by. VX does not publish but that doesn't mean it doesn't have hubs and FCs. See WP:DUCK. HkCaGu (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
We had a mediation, and this was discussed for weeks. We came up with an answer, and implemented it. I believe LAX to be a *hub*, and not just a focus city, but I agreed to abide by the mediator's resolution. Please don't just jump in here and change it again, when nothing has changed with the routes. I won't go over the reasons again, as they are all documented here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, as a note, there are not "new people" involved in the management of the company's operations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Official documents of the airline, while being primary sources, have never and will never be the only type of reliable source allowed. Indeed secondary sources are the preferred type of source on Wikipedia, though both are encouraged to be included. The previous debate resulted in the insertion of three secondary sources. The removal of such sourced information for no good reason except your own opinion on the matter is not acceptable. NcSchu(Talk) 23:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Have it your way pee brains. Let Wikipedia be a place where a bunch of middle and high schoolers go around and speak for companies like they are more qualified than the CEO and I'll continue to sit back and laugh my ass off at the fact that every educational institution and corporation in the world mentions you specifically by name, not because you're a fantastic information source, but because you're the one site out there that can't and never will be trusted. 76.22.201.164 (talk) 04:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time to think about LAX as a "hub" again? it's been a while, and two more cities have been announced, both O/D LAX, and one of the two cities that aren't O/D LAX has been terminated. Ron Schnell 06:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs)

Important News Article

Can someone add a section referencing this news article about how a man boarded a virgin america flight with a boarding pass (different name / different flight date).

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/01/local/la-me-0701-airport-security-20110630 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.238.36 (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Is that really relevant to the airline itself? Slasher-fun (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Terminated Destinations

Since former airports continues to be removed, we need to color-code the terminated airports/cities. For example most airlines in the table format have terminated destinations in grey. I think that we should make the terminated airports/cities grey colored. Snoozlepet (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you know how hard it is to designate different colors in a table? —Compdude123 (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge Virgin America destinations into this article

I think Virgin America destinations ought to be merged into this article because the destination list is very short, and can be seen in entirety without scrolling up or down. Because of the shortness of this page, I think it would fit quite nicely into the destinations section of this article. Please state whether you support or do not support this decision. Thanks, Compdude123 (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

There isn't much in the way of terminated destinations. The airline is barely five years old, and you'd hope that they'd be adding more destinations than they'd be terminating. I think it wouldn't be for another 2-3 years before the airline has expanded enough to the point where we have to split off the destinations again. —Compdude123 (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
It seems pointless to have a totally different sub-article that can be viewed in entirety without scrolling up and down. In my opinion, if the amount of destinations can be viewed without having to scroll up or down, even at a low screen resolution, then it's short enough that it fits quite nicely in the parent article. Like I said already, it won't be for another 2-3 years before the airline has enough destinations to have a separate destinations list. —Compdude123 (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Can I ask why you [Compdude123] are so interested in this subject because you act like you will die unless this change happens. Why can we not leave it as is? It continues the general format of all airlines on wikipedia and it does no one harm by keeping them separate. Cali4529 (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I don't think it's that big of a deal, sometimes I make things into a bigger deal than they really are. Since there doesn't really seem to be an agreement, and this has been posted for 2 weeks, I think it's about time to close this discussion. If anyone else wants to weigh in, great, but we don't seem to be getting to any sort of agreement. What the heck, we're saving us the task of having to split this destinations list off again. Even still, it's not clear to me how many destinations it takes for a destination list to be split off into another article. —Compdude123 (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Splitting and Wikipedia:Merging give reasons and a method for splitting and guidance on merging. Having just read the latter I notice that reason No. 4 for merging is "Context – If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it." which I think rather applies here. Here you have a table of locations that has no context other than that which the reader can discern from the article titlefirst line. The guidance gives reasons for against merging of which "1.The resulting article is too long or 'clunky'" doesn't seem to apply. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
It was decided long ago that destinations lists would do well separated from the main article if longer than about 10 destinations. No reason to change that. Speed74 (talk) 12:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
The airline project guideline refers to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Porter_Airlines_destinations where the concensus was to delete the separate destinations article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
10 destinations? That's all it takes to warrant splitting off destinations list? If that's so why isn't that stated here? Some of us haven't been on WP long enough to remember this being the consensus. Anyway, further discussion on this should take place on the project talk page, not here. —Compdude123 (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I have raised this issue on the WikiProject talk page, please post further comments there. It's not like I'm going to die if the destinations article isn't merged back into this one; I just want clarification on our policies. —Compdude123 (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion closed due to lack of consensus. —Compdude123 (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Virgin America. 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 to let others know.

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 04:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Rumored Alaska Airlines merger

Though we haven't really had problems thus far, we should go over a couple things regarding the rumored acquisition of Virgin America by Alaska Airlines. First, though the transaction is strongly reported to be near completion, no announcements have been made as of now, (April 3, 2016), so let's not report on speculation. Second, in the case that the merger is announced, we can't say that Alaska owns Virgin America yet or that the dissolution is complete, as they are separate companies until the transaction is reported to have been completed. Thus, in such a case, it will only be necessary to say that a deal was reached for Alaska Airlines to absorb Virgin America. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@DarthBotto: Agree — Music1201 talk 00:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Remember, separate airlines, people. Separate airlines. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 20:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

For the record, it's no longer a rumor, but it's not a completed sale either. It still has many hurdles to go through. - BilCat (talk) 04:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Yep, that's why I reminded people that they're still separate airlines. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 05:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
They are still separate airlines until the merger is completed (which will be at least a year from now). So we do not change anything until then (on airport articles, do not change Virgin America to Alaska Airlines nor say "Alaska Airlines operated by Virgin America", etc until it is complete. According to various sources, I believe the combined airline will use the Alaska Airlines name and brand. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
It would seem as though people editing Alaska Air Group didn't get this memo quite so well. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 10:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Yup! Thanks for removing the remaining information that I had missed in my revert. - BilCat (talk)
You bet, BilCat! I like positive engagement like this! DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 01:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I have a question for next year. After the deal goes through in 2017, the Virgin America property will belong to the Alaska Air Group, then Alaska Airlines and Virgin America will officially merge in 2018 with a single certificate. Now, over the course of 2017, will we be considering Virgin America to be an active airline under the Alaska Air Group, alongside Alaska Airlines and Horizon Air? Pardon my ignorance; it's been a while since I edited a page during an active merger, with the last one being the United/Continental merger. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 01:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Virgin America. 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, 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 17:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Virgin America/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MrWooHoo (talk · contribs) 14:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm MrWooHoo. I'd like to quickly explain how I'll be reviewing this article. I will do a general review (checking the criteria), then doing an in-depth prose and source review. Thanks! MrWooHoo (T • C) 14:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Excellent; I look forward to hearing your thoughts and complying with any requested improvements! DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 20:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

General Review

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. See prose review below.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. See prose review below.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Everything is sourced.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Will check sources specifically in the source review.
2c. it contains no original research. Everything is sourced.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Looking towards other airline GA's it looks on par in terms of what it should cover.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Yep.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. I don't see any bias.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Don't see anything since December 10th in terms of vandalism.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Copyright status is all good.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Pictures are suitable and have good captions.
7. Overall assessment. See prose and source review below.

Prose Review

Note: If you have changed the sentence that needed to be corrected, press Enter and start off the line with ::, then use checkY or  Done If the change was only partially done use checkY, and ☒N or  Not done if the change could not occur. (If you would explain why, I would be greatly appreciated :P) To see code, go to edit source and copy the code.

One main issue with the lede I'm a bit confused about...it's using past tense. However, Virgin America and Alaska have not fully merged yet and in the infobox there is no information showing that Virgin America is no longer an airline, so shouldn't you be still using present tense?


Examples:

  • "and had begun operations in 2007."

Why use had begun when you should use began?

 Done Got it. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 22:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Virgin America was a brand created by the British Virgin Group as an American counterpart to the corporation's other airlines.[4] The airline was founded to provide low-fare, high-quality service for service between major metropolitan cities on the Eastern and West Coast seaboards.[5] Virgin America's frequent flyer program Elevate provides award flights and other benefits to frequent fliers."

Note here that the first two sentences uses past (was), but the third sentence uses present tense (provides).

 Done I've taken the liberty of fixing this up, but I'd like to receive your approval. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 22:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "On 8 August 2008 the airline made its inaugural New York and Los Angeles to San Francisco flights "

In some areas of the article you are using a comma after an introductory statement, but here you aren't. Stick to conformity throughout the article.

 Done Good point; I've added that comma throughout, as that's the style I prefer. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 22:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "On May 21, 2009, Virgin America became the first U.S. airline to offer Wi-Fi access via Gogo Inflight Internet on every flight. "

Also, make sure you're using dmy or mdy format throughout the article.

 Done I dig the MDY format, so I believe I've now had that set in uniformity. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 22:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "To promote the service, Oprah Winfrey chatted with a flight attendant, Mandalay Roberts, aboard Flight 780 between Seattle and Los Angeles using Skype."

Are all these details necessary about Oprah chatting with a specific flight attendant using a specific voice chatting service?

 Done I honestly believe none of those details are integral. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 22:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "In March 2010, Virgin America announced its intention to start flying to Toronto from Los Angeles and San Francisco, making for the airline's first international destination."

Shouldn't it be "it" instead of "for"?

 Done Quite right; done! DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 22:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Following the Department of Transportation approval of Virgin America's proposal"

Change Department of Transportation to Department of Transportation's.

 Done Got it. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 22:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Both cabins feature mood lighting, all seats are equipped with Panasonic Avionics' personal in-flight entertainment system running a customized touch-screen GUI called Red."

Remove the comma and add the word "and" between "lighting" and "all".

 Done Done. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 22:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Passengers seated in first class receive complimentary meals, refreshments, and alcoholic beverages and receive dedicated airport check-in, security screening, and aircraft boarding. In first class, Red offers free live satellite television, free on-demand movies, free on-demand television programming and a selection of games. "

In one sentence you are adding the serial comma (the comma before the and as bolded in the quote), but in the other you aren't. Make sure there's conformity with having the comma or not throughout the article.

 Done I don't really dig serial commas, so I've given conformity and also gone through the article, removing any other Oxford punctuation. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 22:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "In Main Cabin, Red offers free live satellite television, pay-per-view on-demand movies and on-demand television shows, a small selection of free games and a larger selection of games for purchase."

Once again, either use the comma before and, or don't. Make that decision throughout the article.

 Done Agreed. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 22:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Source Review

  • Reference 48 cites "Planespotters.net". Does this satisfy WP:RS?
checkY I can't find any alternative sources that update the fleet, as stated below. I'd like to hear your feedback. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Reference 51 is dead, although it's not required for GA, I would fix it on the path to FA.
 Done DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
@MrWooHoo: I will be on the road until the end of the weekend, but I will make the necessary adjustments as soon as I am home. Just a matter of hours. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 21:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
@MrWooHoo: I've applied most every recommendation thus far, though I don't know what to do about the fleet reference, as I can't find a first-party or even more prominent third-party source. For replacing the dead source, I utilized the Fly With Us page on their website, which includes all the same information from the press release, albeit in a less press-oriented fashion. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 22:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
@DarthBotto: After a final check of the article, everything looks up to the GA standard. Will pass now! MrWooHoo (T • C) 02:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
@MrWooHoo: Thank you so much! I am very pleased to see this. :) DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 05:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Airline Quality Rating

In the spirit of WP:BRD requested by BilCat, let's discuss.

Is the Airline Quality Rating -- a faculty research project of two major universities which does a great deal to help consumers make informed decisions about air travel -- "spam-like," as claimed by MilborneOne? Novel compound (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

As you have been adding it to multiple articles (which is were the spam-like comment comes from) it may be best for to raise why you think AQR should be added at the Airline Project, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I added AQR information to the articles for both high-ranked and low-ranked airlines, because those are the places where the information will help consumers the most. I doubt you would think it fair if I singled out a single low-ranked airline, and added the information to that article only.
Is there anyone who would prefer to have the information added to one article only? Novel compound (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
sorry but will help consumers the most is not what wikipedia is about. MilborneOne (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines#Airline Quality Rating (AQR) for discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Virgin America. 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) 18:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Virgin_America/Archive_2&oldid=1136225328"