Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Airlines (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the airline project.


Hello everyone. Can someone please take a look at the article? A WP:COI-user is making silly edits to the article by claiming they work for the company.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Wet-leased aircraft in fleet lists[edit]

Hello everyone! A question about fleet lists and wet-leased aircraft. WP:AIRLINE-FLEET-LIST seems a bit contradictory - on the one hand fleet lists should list all aircraft flown by an airline, on the other hand wet-leased aircraft should not be listed. Airlines sometimes lists aircraft as belonging to their fleet, when they are actually wet-leased, which leads to confusion.

How should this be handled? I can think of at least three solutions:

  1. Include the wet-leased aircraft in the fleet list (breaking WP:AIRLINE-FLEET-LIST)
  2. Include the wet-leased aircraft in the fleet list, but include a statement somewhere that "so-and-so many are wet-leased" (either in the list itself or in an extra paragraph with basic ownership information somewhere).
  3. Remove the wet-leased aircraft from the fleet list, and include only those operated under the airline's AOC. This will comply with WP:AIRLINE-FLEET-LIST. But it will lead to confusion later, when users who don't understand wet leases and AOCs look at airlines' websites etc. and think that the Wikipedia article is missing aircraft.

(The case in point was a discussion about Turkish Airlines. Their fleet includes about 330 aircraft, ~10% of which owned, ~65% dry-leased and ~25% wet-leased. The source for the fleet list in the article is their web site, which includes the wet-leased aircraft as if they were theirs. Clearer information is given only in other reports.) - Toothswung (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Clarification: in the particular case of THY, they list 86 aircraft as "Operating/Wet Lease", only a part of these are actually wet-leased; I read it as 27 under actual wet lease (24+3). Thanks MilborneOne for pointing this out - Toothswung (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I second Toothswung's comment. However, I'd tend to include the aircraft listed by the supporting source, typically the information provided by the airline itself. This, however, will not be in compliance with WP:AIRLINE-FLEET-LIST. Thoughts?--Jetstreamer Talk 16:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Still not convinced that the sources above show any significant amount of wet-leasing going on which appears to be related to the the cargo operation, if the aircraft are registered and painted in THY markings (in this example) they are probably not wet-leased as we understand it. The non-listing of wet-leased aircraft was to stop the listing of aircraft that are owned and operated by somebody else using THY callsigns, I dont see much of that going on at Turkish apart from the 747 freighters so I dont see an issue with the project guidance MilborneOne (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I still think the WL in the 737-800s stand for "wet lease", and the lease partner in question is probably SunExpress - which is Turkish' and Lufthansa's subsidiary and regularly wet-leases out 737-800s - but anyway I don't think it makes sense to get hoocked on this particular case now. Among low-costers it doesn't seem like a rare situation, and paint jobs don't mean much, wet leases in the lessee's livery happen all the time. Anyway the question was not about Turkish Airlines, but about how to deal with wet-leased aircraft in fleet descriptions. - Toothswung (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
WL I believe means it has winglets - I dont think we need to change what we do aircraft that are wet-leased should not be listed, they are not part of the "leased to" airlines fleet and remain legally part of the "leased from" airline. A wet-lease is really just borrowing somebody elses aircraft to operate your flight. So I see nothing wrong with what we do. MilborneOne (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[edit]

Is a reliable source? I see it used as a reference for many fleet tables. Anyone can offer to correct the information, although there are some requirements. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 16:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It is not.--Jetstreamer Talk 16:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, and I also found that they use several "unofficial" sources. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 16:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Terminated destinations[edit]

Another question...are all terminated destinations notable? For example, for an airline like Delta, there is a dizzying number of terminated destinations, and I wonder if we will ever be able to cover them all. Some terminated destinations don't seem notable at all, such as the fact that Delta flew to Terre Haute, Indiana, in the 1950s. I think that, if a terminated destination really is important, then it should be discussed in the History section. For example, the fact that Delta was once expanding in Africa but has since pulled back could be notable. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 17:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

IMO, terminated destinations are as valid as current ones.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
But why? Do you think that they are all notable? — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 17:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Certainly. They are part of the airline's history.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreed Jetstreamer. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Awards and Recognitions[edit]

Can Air Transport World (ATW) awards be added to an airline's page? ATW is well-recognised and known in the aviation industry. Some airlines, like IndiGo, have "Award and Recognition" sections. I have tried adding mentions of the recently announced ATW winners to certain pages, such as Air Serbia, but the addition has been reverted.---Jujr (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

British Airways[edit]

Hi all.

On the subject of BA destinations, I've noticed a number of areas for potential improvement. As follows:

  • The BA Destinations page (link: includes several destinations which were only ever served by codeshare or franchise partners, not BA mainline. A few examples include a variety of Southern African secondary cities (served by BA franchise partner Comair), Scottish Highlands routes (some were BA, some were franchise partner Loganair), some old Norway routes, Waterford, Porto Santo, Azores and Kelowna, Canada. I think most of this information has been included because past World Airline Directory entries are taken as gospel sources, when in fact these entries included codeshares and franchise destinations.
  • To resolve this, I suggest a separate section could be created on the BA Destinations page for these destinations to be moved to, thus retaining the information but segmenting it from the main BA destination list.
  • I think there may also be actual directly served past BA destinations missing from the list. I have some info on this and am happy to research it further and get back to you all on here, with links, timetables etc.
  • BA CityFlyer is the same company as BA, in fact is a wholly owned subsidiary airline whose branding is identical. I'd suggest that standalone CityFlyer destinations be included on the main BA list, in addition to their current placing on the CityFlyer list, with perhaps an indicator colour or asterisk-type system to show this minor distinction. Currently there is some crossover, with some routes served both by mainline and CityFlyer, but also some routes served by one yet terminated by the other, or served by one yet never served by the other. Rotterdam springs to mind; this is actually included as current in the mainline list of destinations, yet is now only served by CityFlyer. The current setup is confusing to anyone looking for info on the airline, giving the impression that certain destinations aren't served and thus are not bookable on BA metal, when in fact they are.
  • Is it really necessary to include on a full line cities' old airports that have been replaced by a new airport, where that airport is still open? Examples: Seoul, Osaka, Bangkok etc. Again this is misleading and would be better served in a separate shortlist at the bottom and/or with an asterisk/footnote. It's not even consistent: Bangkok's entry only includes Suvarnabhumi Airport and not the old, but still operational, Don Mueang. Further, I've seen cases in other airlines' destination lists where closed airports are included, even where the new airport is currently served.
  • Lastly, reading these type of lists isn't so easy with the current colour coding system. It only highlights certain boxes, rather than the whole row, which is easier to read and would be much clearer.

Hope this is constructive. Your thoughts?

Best Ross-shire

Ross-shire (talk) 13:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the last point, you may want to read WP:AIRLINE-DEST-LIST where you can find the formats that were adopted by consensus.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Airline Quality Rating (AQR)[edit]

The addition of information from the Airline Quality Rating on a few American airlines has been challenged with a request that it should be discussed. User:Novel compound who made the additions mentions AQR is important to Wikipedia readers. and helps consumers make informed decisions which has been explained is not encyclopedic and perhaps it may be something for Comments welcome MilborneOne (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The Airline Quality Rating is a faculty research project of two major universities which does a great deal to help consumers make informed decisions about air travel.
MilborneOne says that "helping consumers make informed decisions about air travel is not what wikipedia is for." I agree, of course. Wikipedia is a place to present encyclopædic (i.e., notable) information. And a fortunate side effect of presenting notable information often happens to be that it helps consumers make well-informed decisions.
Air travel is an enormous industry that is subject to much discussion about the quality of service. As such, when an airline receives a high or low AQR it is very notable.
When AQR information was added to the articles of airlines that received high or low rankings, MilborneOne complained that "adding it to multiple articles" is "spam-like" behavior. So I asked whether he thought it would be more fair to single out a single low-ranking airline, and add the information to that article only. So far, he has declined to answer that question. Novel compound (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
They are loads of these quality ratings provided by different organisations for a lot of subjects in wikipedia but none of which have any real encyclopedic value, and some have been found to be biased or localised and in some cases only paid for members are reviewed. But wikipedia is not a travel guide and is not the right place for such "ratings". MilborneOne (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Definitely not encyclopedic. Here we have yet another editor that thinks Wikipedia is a travel guide.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Nonsense. Competent, independent evaluations of the quality of a major corporation's products and services are subject to inclusion in an encyclopædia article about that corporation. If you feel otherwise, you should delete this section from Wikipedia: DirectBuy#Consumer Reports is a place to discuss travel destinations. It has no articles about the airlines that received high or low AQR ratings. It doesn't even have an article named "Air travel."
If MilborneOne has solid evidence that AQR releases biased ratings, let's hear it. Wikipedia is not a place to publish, or base decisions on, "what-if" innuendo. Novel compound (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
This is neither the place to discuss the quality of airline services. Even Skytrax rankings do not qualify as encyclopedic, with very, very rare exceptions. Separately, as far as I can see, all of your related edits are promotional. See WP:SOAPBOX.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
My addition to the Spirit Airlines article said, "In the AQR announced April 4, 2016, Spirit ranked 13th out of 13 airlines." Does that sound "promotional"?
A mere assertion, that the quality of a corporation's products and services is not an admissible topic in an article about that corporation, is not convincing at all. If you took some action against DirectBuy#Consumer Reports, I would at least admire your consistency.
Apparently you believe this kind of detail, largely transcribed from an airline's route maps, is encyclopædic. I disagree, but I'm not about to throw a hissy fit and start nominating those articles for deletion. I respect the fact that those articles add value, even though they're not encyclopædic. Novel compound (talk) 05:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
You are welcome to raise the subject of airline routes here or take these articles to a deletion discussion but it has no relevance to ranking or quality opinions. MilborneOne (talk) 10:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
To add to what MilborneOne said, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Regarding the Delta Air Lines destinations article, you're more than welcome to start cleaning up the article or to propose changes in the corresponding talk page. You must understand that two users cannot keep an eye on the entire project.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

technical stops / triangular routes vs. cabotage, Fifth Freedom etc.[edit]

Apologies if this has been discussed earlier. I have looked about Wikiproject:airports as well as Wikiproject: airlines, and not turned anything up. I'm looking for a consensus on how to handle the notation and inclusion of technical stops in airline service lists on airport pages. Many airlines, particularly on intercontinental routes, operate triangular routes without Fifth Freedom rights. Examples abound (Air China to Budapest and Minsk, Air Mauritius to KL and Singapore, etc.) but flights into West Africa operated by Air France, Brussels Airlines, and Turkish tend to be particularly complex in this regard. I have long been keen to update pages with section footnotes notes explaining such operations, as well as including invisible text flags warning fellow editors not to add destination Q served by the relevant airline from airport X, when the airline has no rights to operate between X and Q. However, I have noticed that periodically these notes disappear. It would seem relevant that a given route was triangular instead of nonstop, as this tells the audience about the size and organization of the route from a business point of view. It also reveals aspects of the regulatory environment. Am I mistaken? Discussion welcome. Pufferfyshe (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Aircraft orders[edit]

Just looking for clarification on fleet lists - I understood the "order" column in the fleet table is for new aircraft ordered from the manufacturer and any other changes to the fleet like dry leases and second-hand purchases are listed in the notes. Does anybody else agree with this and if they do should it be added to the page layout guide? MilborneOne (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I certainly agree.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


Is it safe to say that the airline is now defunct? Google says it "ceased operations" in December 2016 (after its license was suspended; its airplanes have since been repossessed and it looks like it's not going to come back, at least under its current incarnation), but the article is still written in the present tense. Should the article be updated to reflect its zombie status? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you have sources at hand to support the changes?--Jetstreamer Talk 01:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)