Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:43, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

New airline HQ photos uploaded

A user on Flickr changed the license of his image of the British Airways headquarters. EDIT: This is so I could upload the image to Wikipedia. A Wikipedian from the Seattle area uploaded images of the Alaska Airlines headquarters. I'm still trying to get more airline headquarter photos from different places around the world. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• BTW Ammar Shaker also uploaded a new photo of the Saudi Arabian Airlines building in Jeddah. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• If the image of the BA headquarters was an acceptable license when the photo was uploaded then it's ok. That's why Commons has the Flickr Review process. See Commons:Flickr files. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - the author changed the license to Creative Commons before the photo was uploaded; if one wants a picture on Flickr but the license isn't right, you can ask the author to change the license. Once he or she does so, you can upload the Flickr photo. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • And another: File:AMRHeadquartersFortWorth.jpg, the HQ of AMR Corporation/AA, has been relicensed to Creative Commons and uploaded :) WhisperToMe (talk) 03:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I also got NWA on board as well. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • And there's Turkish Airlines's HQ WhisperToMe (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • If anyone can find a picture of the Delta headquarters in Atlanta, appreciate it! Charmedaddict (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    • User:Mav stated on his talk page that he was going to try to get the HQ of Delta. It would be wonderful to have a shot of Delta's HQ on here. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    • A flickr user relicensed his photograph, so File:DeltaAirLinesHQAtlantaGA.jpg is now up :) WhisperToMe (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Keep the pictures coming! Charmedaddict (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I have more photos uploaded - including a new one of United's, Easyjet, Air New Zealand, and a few others. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

These photos are nice, however, many of the buildings referenced and illustrated are only partially occupied on various floors by these airlines. Sometime it can be misleading but completely worthwhile to have these photos of headquarters illustrated. Thanks too all doing a very nice job on these. It would also be worthwhile if the actual parent companies of some of the private firms that hold airines could be illustrated too.

For it is from these ivory towers of detached and remote corporate directors that execercise control of the destinys of many of the airlines. 32.176.75.82 (talk) 04:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Objective Third Party Opinions and/or Expert Needed at the Virgin America article

If you would all be so kind as to review the issue being discussed at this article and weigh in with your opinion I would appreciate it. We'd like to incur a larger, more objective, unemotional share of input then what exists right now. Thank you very much for your time and we really appreciate it. 68.52.42.38 (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is it so hard to get enough opinions on this topic to even fill a whole hand while there is numerous participation with everything else? I mean, seriously. And don't get cranky like you're doing some big grandiose out of your way thing by sending one or two people over there because its really not that much, this is what this page is for, and its been two weeks for goodness sake so its not like anyone's rushed or harrassed you. 68.52.42.38 (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If we don't get enough outside participation to create a landslide in a particular direction then mark my words this article along with the ones about LA, LAX, and the rest of the Virgin brand are about enter a serious rough patch that won't end until the argument gets fully resolved. 68.52.42.38 (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Much like anyone else who understands that Airlines do not mean crap by themselves anymore - and it is only the indivuals behind the scenes who control the mostly Delaware Corporate Law Entities airlines have become, and this destiny is of what is of real value in articles now.

One way to improve this article would be to explain in depth and breadth who VAI Partners LLC owns 75% of the capital stock are! The article is slick, too slick in fact to believed it is not a collabaration of solely wiki contributers. 32.176.75.82 (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)32.176.75.82 (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Cathay Pacific now open

The peer review for Cathay Pacific is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 17:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Dragonair now open

The peer review for Dragonair is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 17:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Oneworld now open

The peer review for Oneworld is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - Aviator006 (talk) 04:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

How many people are employed directly by ONEWORLD? NOT employed by the Airlines of ONEWORLD, but by ONEWORLD itself.

Remember TEXAS AIR CORPORATION and the NEW YORK BUSINESSMAN Frank Lorenzo when 1/4 of air travel within the United States was controlled by the greed of no more than 40 people. Yes these 40 enrichened themselves vastly at the expense of 10s of thousands that they put out of work at the bankrupted other airlines they controlled to acquire their riches.

Right now they same thing is still happening. We just don't want to see this happen at the ONE WORLD, STAR ALLIANCE, and SKY TEAM level when some one truly comes up with the idea of megaconglomeration international holding parent companie mergers. Waited maybe we have already with Synergy bringing together of Synergy Aerospace Holdings of Avianca and many other airlines under that group, and Grupo TACA's holdings.

Makes one think 32.176.75.82 (talk) 05:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

BEA single - advice requested

I would appreciate any advice from the folks in this WikiProject (as more knowledgeable about Airline articles than I am) about the inclusion of a bit of information for Other facts of interest. I have left a discussion point at the article's talk page. Any advice/opinions are welcomed! Thanks, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 13:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Southern Star Airways

New article Southern Star Airways from New Zealand, cant find any evidence that it exists? MilborneOne (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be a WP:HOAX - I have placed it on AFD. --Admrboltz (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

AF headquarters question

Is this the AF headquarters building? http://www.flickr.com/photos/ettorephotos/3173333343/ - If so, I think I will be able to upload this to Wikipedia on fair use grounds, as French law states that photos of recently built buildings are copyrighted. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Answering my own question: Yes it is the AF headquarters as this other image shows: http://corporate.airfrance.com/uploads/pics/A320_devant_siege_air_france_roissy_cdg.jpg - I'm now figuring out what licensing I would need to show to upload an image of a recently built French building. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Naming of Airlines

Hi guys, I would like to now the rules on how to name an airline. As I don't know them, for me there seems to be an inconsistency:

• British Midland Airways call themselves bmi (even in their postal adress, as can be seen here: [1]) but we - especially in airport dest-lists - call it BMI (something I have never seen anywhere else)
• On the other hand, Izair [2] call themselves IZair, and that's exactly how we name it, too. (this is quite new, done some days ago by WhisperToMe)

I guess there are more such cases. Please enlighten me, I just wanna know the rules, so that it becomes consistent for me. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the tendency is to follow the WP:NAME recommendation to use conventional English capitalization rules even when the trademark use would encourage otherwise. Thus, since BMI is an abbreviation/acronym/initialism, it gets used in all caps even though the airline uses lowercase. But since we have different editors editing different articles and doing things a bit differently, not everything follows that convention. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I often refer myself to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) in regards to how to call an airline when I do updates to articles. The article name as I've seen is usually the common name of the airline or the name appeared in their trademark (in this case, BMI), and the first words in the lead will write out the whole company registered name (in this case, British Midland Airways Limited). Aviator006 (talk) 11:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"(in this case, BMI)": but they style it as bmi. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 11:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Please refer the guidelines with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). Aviator006 (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Air India flights operated by Indian Airlines

CHENNAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
AI446/447 = Chennai-Singapore-Chennai (Operated by A320 family Aircraft)
AI448/449 = Chennai-Singapore-Chennai (Operated by A320 family Aircraft)


BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
AI444/445 = Bangalore-Singapore-Bangalore (Operated by A320 family Aircraft)


INDIRA GANDHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
AI102/101 = Delhi-Kolkata-Delhi (Operated by A320 family Aircraft)
AI112/111 = Delhi-Kolkata-Delhi (Operated by A320 family Aircraft)
AI126/127 = Delhi-Hyderabad-Delhi (Operated by A320 family Aircraft)
AI841/840 = Delhi-Abu Dhabi-Delhi (Operated by 737-800 Aircraft of Air-India Express)
AI480/481 = Delhi-Singapore-Delhi (Operated by A320 family Aircraft)
AI638/639 = Delhi-Amritsar-Delhi (Operated by A320 family Aircraft)


CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
AI191/144 = Mumbai-Chennai-Mumbai (Operated by A320 family Aircraft)
AI141/140 = Mumbai-Hyderabad-Mumbai (Operated by A320 family Aircraft)
AI442/443 = Mumbai-Singapore-Mumbai (Operated by A320 family Aircraft)
AI845/844 = Mumbai-Abu Dhabi-Mumbai (Operated by 737-800 Aircraft of Air-India Express)
AI620/621 = Mumbai-Bangalore-Mumbai (Operated by A320 family Aircraft)
AI130/131 = Mumbai-Ahmedabad-Mumbai (Operated by A320 family Aircraft)
AI631 = Ahmedabad-Mumbai (Operated by A320 family Aircraft)
AI690/691 = Mumbai-Kochi-Mumbai (Operated by A320 family aircraft)


HOW can you say that all these are not Air India flights but Indian Airlines(IC) flights JUST because they operated on A320 family aircraft? In that case why have you listed Dammam as a Air India destination on Calicut International Airport and Cochin International Airport when both Dammam bound flights from these 2 airports are operated on A320 family aircraft? (i've just temporalily put in the Indian Airlines column, since you cannot put destinations operated on A320s in the AI Column according to User talk:Jasepl)



COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
AI911/912 = Kochi-Dammam-Kochi (Operated on A320 family Aircraft)


CALICUT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
AI917/918 = Kozhikode-Dammam-Kozhikode (Operated on A320 family Aircraft)

Since you all say destinations that are operated by A320 family aircraft cannot be listed on the Air India column of Indian Airports, so where should Dammam be put in Cochin and Calicut airport articles since Indian Airlines does'nt even go to Saudi Arabia. (i've just temporalily put in the Indian Airlines column, since you cannot put destinations operated on A320s in the AI Column according to User talk:Jasepl)




What i suggest is that which ever domestic flight has a Air India flight code should be listed in the Air India column of Indian Airports (even if they are operated on A320 family aircraft because now all aircraft, be it Airbus or Boeing are now owned by National Aviation Company of India) to avoid unnecessary confusion created by User talk:Jasepl and his so-called created WikiProject:Aviation norms

These are the destinations which Air India goes according to their Destination Map (I've listed only those which are served under AI codes)

11 Domestic Destinations

• India
  • Ahmedabad
  • Amritsar
  • Calicut
  • Chennai
  • Cochin
  • Bangalore
  • Delhi
  • Hyderabad
  • Kolkata
  • Mumbai
  • Trivandrum

18 International Destinations

• Kenya
  • Nairobi
• China
  • Hong Kong
  • Shanghai
• Japan
  • Osaka
  • Tokyo
• Singapore
• Saudi Arabia
  • Dammam
  • Jeddah
  • Riyadh
• United Arab Emirates
  • Abu Dhabi
  • Dubai
• France
  • Paris
• Germany
  • Frankfurt
• United Kingdom
  • London
• Canada
  • Toronto
• United States
  • Chicago
  • New York City
  • Newark

(Druid.raul (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC))

Air India and Indian Airlines are in the process of a merger. So airlines are still operating seperately under its own codes, aircraft, crew, etc. Another thing is that we put the destination to the airline that is operating the aircrafr...and since these aircraft are owned by Indian Airlines and not Air India it needs to be listed as "Indian Airlines". Once the merger is completed (when a single-operating certificate is achieved) then we can all write it as Air India flights. This is the exact same situation as the Delta/Northwest merger and those flights are still listed under the airline that operates them. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

JetBlue Airways and the JFK Airport hub

On the press releases, it clearly states that JFK is the main hub of JetBlue Airways. Yet a user on the article yet reverted me (and someone else sometime back) saying that it's not a hub. I would be more inclined to believe the information off the airline's own website and about page, rather than from people's own hearsay. I would like to hear other people's thoughts on this. --[[::User:Sb617|Sb617]] (talk · contribs)

Simple solution is to include a reference using the {{cite web}} or {{cite press}}. Then removal would in my opinion be vandalism. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Delta/US Airways Shuttle flights

Need your opinion on how to list the Delta Shuttle/US Airways Shuttle....Should we list them as "Delta Shuttle operated by X/US Airways Shuttle operated by X" or should we treat them just as if they were mainline DL/US flights. Thanks! 74.183.173.237 (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Just plain Delta / US Air in my opinion. Other airlines also have a “sub brand” – United’s PS, Iberia’s Puente Aereo, Air France’s La Navette, Lufthansa’s Italia... None of these have a separate listing. I think the only instances where we do an “operated by” is when one airline operates a route for another airline, eg Loganair for British Airways.

For the shuttle flights, that is not the case. It’s either Delta operating for Delta, or some other airline operating for Delta. Jasepl (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought we list the airline under whose callsign the flight operates, instead of the one according to the flight number? Therefore, I would leave these flights as they are listed now. The airlines that are operating as Delta/United etc. Shullte are independently registered airlines, in contrary to Lufthansa Italia. It's the same as with BA Cityflyer or Contact Air. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Originally the shuttles were independent companies; however, in the last decade they have been merged operationally into their parent airlines and I think it is fair to characterize them as a branded service. They no longer have dedicated equipment or crews, and in fact some Delta Shuttle flights are now operated by Republic.-choster (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

And also, some of the shuttle flights utilize mainline aircraft. Also, the US Airways Shuttle flights betweem LGA and BOS/DCA are listed as US Airawys flights per their official website. Also, some IPs also state that they have their own ticket counter for check-in. Does it really matter? 74.183.173.237 (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

To Choster: do you mean it should be listed as DL mainline destinations since when you said they are no longer an "independent carrier". 74.183.173.237 (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that it should be listed as DL Shuttle operated by X. DL Shuttle is a brand name just like DL Connection and has different airlines operate under that brand. In the case of DL Shuttle, DL and S5 are the operators for the brand.

Ishwasafish ^{click here!!!}

19:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that it should be listed as Delta Shuttle operated by X as the branding (such as DL Connection or the likes) is now farmed out to Shuttle America iirc. If it is a separate branding, or service within a carrier operated by another airline, it should be listed as such. Lrdc9 (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem is that Shuttle America is operating as a Delta Connection carrier not Delta Shuttle. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

S5 also operates for the DL Shuttle brand.

Ishwasafish ^{click here!!!}

19:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

How about US Airways Shuttle? Should those be listed as US Airways Shuttle operated by US Airways or list them as mainline destinations since the above discussed was only about Delta Shuttle. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I make the same argument that I did previously for DL Shuttle.

Ishwasafish ^{click here!!!}

19:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously people are getting these airline franchising brands confused with AIRLINES. Maybe some one needs to come up with the page topic of Airline Franchising Brands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.128.161.188 (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2009

How to list PRC and Taiwan in airline destinations

When listing PRC and Taiwan in airline destinations, should we list People's Republic of China, Republic of China or should we list the name use (China for PRC and Taiwanfor ROC)? 74.183.173.237 (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this was answered further up the page at #How_to_List_Taiwan_and_China. MilborneOne (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I personally believe China and Taiwan as people may not know the difference between the two and as China and Taiwan are more common it makes me believe it is the correct way to put it across. Regards. Zaps93 (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Our China guidelines say to use ROC and PRC. In fact the ROC =/ Taiwan - Taiwan is just a name that the ROC is often called by. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

To MilborneOne: Yes, i just realized it after i posted the topic. However, I see that most airline destinations list China and Taiwan and China as "People's Republic of China" and "Repubic of China" but I would put Taiwan in parenthesis beside ROC to differentiate the two. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Chucking in WP:COMMONNAME here, we shoud use China and Taiwan. Probably best to use piped link from article titles. Mjroots (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

AA New York-LaGuardia hub dispute

Need your help to settle a dispute on American Airlines. Suddenly, New York-LaGuardia was added as a hub for American Airlines. Yes, AA's website lists New York as a hub but they only mention JFK to increse flight operations there. A discussion was started here at the AA talk page. Please add your thoughts on whether or not LGA is considered a hub for AA to that page. Regards! 74.183.173.237 (talk) 02:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Initiative for the removal of unscheduled charter flights from airport destination lists

Hi guys, this is about the problem that many airports (especially in the Mediterranean and the Caribbean) list a huge amount of charter destinations that are apparently not served on a regular base, as no schedules exist. IMO Wikipedia polica sees these entries to be removed. Additionally, some former destinations were never removed from the dest-lists at airport articles. A good way how to find them would be searching the What links here list of airlines for airports that are not included in the destination list/article of the respective airline. I have already done this with SAS, Finnair, and Czech Airlines. I would invite you to help me. Maybe you just could list the airlines that you have reviewed here. Best regards. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 08:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

edit: I also included this post in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 09:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Khyber Afghan Airlines

Khyber Afghan Airlines is totally unreferenced. How do I check to see if the ICAO codes are actually assigned to the airline? WhisperToMe (talk) 06:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

http://www.airlinecodes.co.uk/ Vegaswikian (talk) 06:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

http://www.airlinecodes.co.uk/home.asp KHY = No results found - I put a hoax tag and a PROD on the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I also found a lack of sources for MarcoPolo Airways - The one that was cited was NOT an RS, so I prodded this one too. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ardfern has been the most prolific creator of airline articles so I'm surprised that these are issues. We either need to find the source that he is using or verify more of his articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Code KHY callsign KHYBER is allocated to Khyber Afghan Airlines refer ICAO 8585 Edition 149. I have removed the prod and hoax but it still needs more content and sources. MilborneOne (talk) 18:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have de-prodded MarcoPolo Airways as well ICAO document has MCP/MARCOPOLO/MARCOPOLO AIRWAYS Afghanistan. MilborneOne (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! So it seems like some codes do not show up at airlinecodes.co.uk, or the codes may have lapsed? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I suspect more to do with the way an amateur site like airlinecodes works rather than the official sites like http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/CNT/3-3-K.htm and https://extranet.eurocontrol.int/http://prisme-web.hq.corp.eurocontrol.int/indicators/aircraft_operators_browse.jsp I suspect they stay on the official sites longer because nobody bothers to tell ICAO when an airline closes! MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft sub-types

It is my understanding that we dont normally list the subtype in fleet listing to either include airbus engine codes with multiple entries different (ie. A319-112 or A319-132 would be listed as either A319 or A319-100 but only one entry). And we dont include Boeing customer codes either, or have multiple entries for different customer codes. On Olympic Air User:Zaps93 disagrees and keeps adding multiple lines. Any comments ? MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I only have 1 reason for my edits. For Boeing aircraft like the 737-300 or 747-400 I see no point to list their sub categories as they have no relevance to the engine model on the aircraft, but as for the Airbus series, their codes (eg. A319-112) mean the engines type they have. A319-112 are equipped with CFM56-5B, but the A319-132 is equipped with IAE Model V2524. All I am saying is for Airbus aircraft, to help people research airlines is to add teh sub-types so that they can tell the engine model if desired. Zaps93 (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think that aircraft sub-codes are useful. They should be linked by a pipe, such as Airbus A319-132. For the Boeing customer codes there is a dedicated list. Mjroots (talk) 08:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As reader of article, I just got annoyed and confused with extra info I did not want to see it! I just want to you to include "-132" in comments section. Main column include text didn't make any sence. Why? makes difficult to dealt for my eyes (extra junk), so I just want to remove from main column and got info in comments section. --B767-500 (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not junk, its the model of engines which is good, notable information unlike the Boeing customer number which is irrelevant. It's good information to have in the article. Zaps93 (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Airbus - I still dont think the engines used on an aircraft by an airline is notable unless the first of a type. We also have some airlines that do operate a number of different sub-types which causes confusion to the reader. It is also possible for aircraft to change from one sub-type to another when an engine is changed. MilborneOne (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally believe it should be there though. It is helpful information, just like the amount of an aircraft in fleet. Yes they may change but that is why we update it. Zaps93 (talk) 13:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Navigation Templates

I just did a major overhaul of {{Airline holding companies of the United States}}. As I explained on the talk page, it had gotten a bit out of hand. It was essentially an unsourced article masquerading as a template. Consider the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 20#Template:Airline holding company organizations of the world. The same argument could have been made for deleting this outright, but I decided to just cut it down to something useful and more in line with WP:NAVBOX rather than putting it up for deletion.

I'd also like to get people's thoughts on {{Alaska Airlines}}. I think it's a bit much. {{Delta Air Lines}} is much more reasonable. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 05:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP editor has apparently decided to attempt to engage in a revert war over {{Airline holding companies of the United States}}. Need input on which version to use. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like some thoughts on the footer links that were added to {{Airlines of the United States}}. I'm pretty sure this is the same anonymous "Holding Company Guy" editor we've dealt with before. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the organization of the WORLD and WIKI should be turned over to OBAMA and 717.

Like OBAMA, ONLY maybe HE KNOWS WHAT IS BEST FOR THE MERE PLEBIANS and PEASANTS NOT HYBRID ENOUGH to think for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.176.75.82 (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Better format for fleet tables

I had created a better format for Saudi Arabian Airlines fleet which is consistently being reverted by Zaps93, many other airline articles have this more oragnised looking table format for cargo, passenger fleets and VIP aircraft, I dont understand why its bothering him.115.42.67.101 (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't hate nor dislike it, the think that bothers me is, it hasn't been discussed nor decided apon, so I am simply following the rules. Comments welcome. Zaps93 (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You said quote "ruined fleet table", it means it was your personal view and nothing to do with rules and regulations, no one else was bothered about similar change made in other articles by other people and not me, anything that makes an article look better or concise should be accepted.115.42.67.101 (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've requested that both parties discuss this issue on the article's talk page. Input from other editors is welcome too. Mjroots (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel the single table format looks way better than having several separate tables for cargo, passenger, etc. Also, the total and last updated date at the end of the single table is a good addition!

On a semi-related note, the fleet table colours are also great in the Saudia article: much better than the multicoloured ones we see in so many other airline pages. Jasepl (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• On another semi-related note, I propose doing away with listing the destinations served in the fleet tables. There really is no encyclopaedic reason to include it. Jasepl (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• And the routes should also be dropped. They are more travel guideish. Also short, medium and long are not clearly defined or the same for all airlines and are more a function of the aircraft. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Concur. Aircraft flying routes change all the time and everyone's definition of long and short haul is different; medium haul is all over the place. It's not just not encyclopaedic information, it is also impossible to keep accurate. I don't think we need much more than the make/model of the plane, and the number in service/on order. Jasepl (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that the 'notes' section definately needs to stay aswell as it provides extra, notable information. Zaps93 (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Fair enough. But let's ensure it is really necessary and the notes in it are indeed noteworthy. Jasepl (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, as my point of view, here is my example of what the fleet box should contain;

FlyExample Fleet

Aircraft	In Service	Orders	Options	Passengers (First1/Economy)	IFE	Notes
Boeing 737-700	10	5	3	124 (12/112)	Panasonic eFX AVOD	Deliveries: 2010
Boeing 737-900ER	2	0	0	179 (12/167)	Panasonic eFX AVOD	Exit from service: November 2009
Total	12	5	3			Last updated: 9 October 2009

Your opinions? Best regards, Zaps93 (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Drop IFE and it starts looking good. One point on 'In Service'. This opens up the need to include those that are parked. Maybe 'owned' in the heading? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

In Service tends to mean those that are actually in fleet even if stored... Maybe change it to 'In Fleet' though to avoid the confusion? I also believe we should keep IFE as this may be the reason why some people look, to see what they can expect on their flights. Zaps93 (talk) 10:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• IFE shouldn't be there: we're not a travel guide (whether or not people look for that information here). Besides not being encyclopaedic, most airlines don't always have IFE consistency across their fleet, or even across aircraft type. Jasepl (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I see your point Jasepl and Vegaswikian, just that maybe it should stay on major U.S. airlines like it has been for years? Other than that though, what's your overall opinion? Regards. Zaps93 (talk) 11:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Why make an exception for some airlines? The premise is the same: that's its not encyclopaedic information and this is not a travel guide. Besides that, looks good to me: Aircraft, In Service, Orders, Options, Seating (F/J/Y etc), Notes. Jasepl (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• It has been a newer add for many airlines. If you want to push the retention of IFE, then we would also need to add seat pitch, the size of the personal space in the upgraded first class cabins and who knows what else. It simply does not belong and it is not clear that if we were going to add another column this is the most notable feature. One could argue that the need is for which aircraft has a power port to plug in the computers and DVD players! Let's avoid the non encyclopedic features. And as Jasepl said, sourcing would be a bear. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• On second thought, do we need to list options? I mean that's just what they are: Options. There's no guarantee when or if options will turn into reality. They're always converted from Options into Orders before joining the fleet, so just In Service and Orders should suffice, right? Jasepl (talk) 11:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, no IFE, but I do believe Options should be listed, they have always been there and are notable in their own way. If an airline has an option say for 3 737's, but converts 2, then they will still have 1 option. So the table should have; 'In Service/In Fleet, Orders, Options, Passengers, Notes'? Regards. Zaps93 (talk) 11:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Exactly. an option is an uncertain number, by its definition. If an when an option of 3 737s is converted into an order for 2 737s, then the order column is upped by 2, right? My opinion is that options are not needed for that very reason. Jasepl (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I think you misunderstood me, my fault. I ment that an airline places an amount of options, it's not just a random number decided by a random group. Just my opinion though. Zaps93 (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Options need to be kept, they are an indication of a future order and I believe that the airline pays cash for the option. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Weird digits (e.g. Airbus A320-214) should dropped due to confusion

I don't think appropriate we are using extra three digits:

• Airbus A320-214
• Airbus A320-231
• Airbus A320-232

Why? Because of numbers mean engine type, but it meant nothing about fuselage length. Another editor saying that similar to "B737-300", but I don't think correct! Meaning of numbers different! I want to put all Airbus A320-2xx in single records in US Airways! Thank you for investigate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B767-500 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This dicussion is further up page, please take up there. Zaps93 (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

How to list destinations in Turkey - Europe? Asian? or both?

I have recently been a bit confused to the whole 'how to list destinations in Turkey'. I know there is no correct way and believe a solution should be agreed apon to resolve issues. I personally believe it should be listed as below:

Asia

• Cyprus
  • Larnaca - Larnaca Airport
• Turkey
  • Bodrum - Milas-Bodrum Airport
  • Dalaman - Dalaman Airport
• United Arab Emirates
  • Abu Dhabi - Abu Dhabi International Airport

Europe

• Austria
  • Vienna - Schwechat Airport
• Turkey
  • Istanbul - Atatürk Airport

But some editors have been disagreeing and putting it all under 'Europe', this is false as Bodrum and Dalaman are in Asia, not Europe. If this cannot be used, then maybe begin a new section named 'Eurasia' and list destinations in Eurasian countries there? For example:

Eurasia

• Turkey
  • Bodrum - Milas-Bodrum Airport
  • Dalaman - Dalaman Airport

Comments and opinions please! Best regards, Zaps93 (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, for whatever reason Turkey is considered European (even though the majority os its territory lies in Asia). And that is fine. But it would be plain silly to split up the destinations between continents.

Same deal for Russia, Kazakhstan, Egypt etc.

And Eurasia is not a commonly-accepted continent; heck, everything from Iceland to India to Japan to Greece is Eurasia.

So leave it the way it is: list all destinations in a particular country under a single continent. For convenience, if nothing else.

FYI, I took the liberty of re-formatting your post above, so that it all appears in one section. Thanks. Jasepl (talk) 01:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Linking airline destinations

c.f. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Linking_airline_destinations discussion.

NevilleDNZ (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

NRT is 'seasonal focus city' for UAL -- I really thinks so

I know before, other editors removaled NRT as focus city for UA. But they didn't think about seasonal focus city! UA cutting non-stop service from U.S. to PEK and TPE, so NRT benefitting by re-became focus city! I hope you like change :-) !

• Bangkok-Suvarnabhumi - NONHUB
• Beijing-Capital [begins 26 October] - NONHUB
• Chicago-O'Hare
• Honolulu - NONHUB
• Los Angeles
• San Francisco
• Seattle/Tacoma - NONHUB
• Seoul-Incheon - NONHUB
• Singapore - NONHUB
• Taipei-Taoyuan - NONHUB
• Washington-Dulles —Preceding unsigned comment added by B767-500 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You will need to provide a source for NRT being a UA focus city. Also, Narita is just used as point-to-point flights for United. Snoozlepet (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think you thought of as correctly. Planes to NRT be timing correctly to passengers interchange with other flights. --B767-500 (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Does United say anywhere that NRT is a focus city??? If you can provide a reliable source saying it is a focus city then it is a focus city. You can't just decide for yourself that NRT is a United focus city Spikydan1 (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the link to the airline's company profile http://ir.united.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=83680&p=irol-homeProfile: It lists UA's hubs at ORD, DEN, LAX, IAD, and SFO. The only time NRT is mentioned is that it just serves Asia from NRT and one of the 2 carriers authorized to serve US-Narita routes from any US point...never mentioning focus city. Snoozlepet (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Airline

A user has added financial fields in the Template:Infobox Airline has this been discussed ? doesnt look right for an airline more to do with companies. MilborneOne (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Also why is there an AOC section? I never noticed this before. Zaps93 (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It was added in August with no discussion but it wasnt challenged at the time. MilborneOne (talk) 11:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, most of us don't watch the templates, which could edplain why the change went unnoticed. I'm not convinced that this information is maintainable at this level. We already have a ton of information in each article that requires updating, fleets, destinations, fleet age, so adding this would appear to be a burden. One part of me argues that if this is desirable from the company wikiproject and they are going to update it, then fine. On the other hand, how many companies release this detail for all of their flying subsidiaries? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that the sort of detail added would only be available for a very small number of the 3000 airline articles. MilborneOne (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I have notifed the user who added the fields (User:Lcmortensen of this discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and as for the AOC, that will be difficult to aquire for some airlines. Maybe the user was unaware it needed to be discussed first. Zaps93 (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that it needed to be discussed. The financial field came around because I had done some work with financials for New Zealand companies - i realized that airlines are companies too - the template already have some of the Infobox Company fields (Key people, headquarters, etc.) The inspiration came with the Air New Zealand article - Air NZ is a NZX 50 company (the top stock index in New Zealand), so it looked odd without financial figures.Lcmortensen (mailbox) 07:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Airline holding companies template

I made a note of this earlier but didn't get a response, so wanted to bring it up again before I take more drastic actions. I redesigned {{Airline holding companies of the United States}} to be more in line with a standard navigation template, but I keep getting reverted to the massive version by an IP editor. My feeling is that this has grown beyond a navigation template, and the similarly massive template for worldwide airline holding companies was deleted some months back in favor of a list article. I would like some consensus on whether going forward we should keep the massive version, the simplified version I developed, or delete the whole thing. The simplified version can be seen in the template's history here: [3]. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Support your small version Hawaiian, big information is more appropriate for a list article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of a nav template is to provide a tool to navigate between like articles. It is not intended to document all of the related holdings and copious details. I have written some rather large templates in the past and generally they were nominated at WP:TFD. The only solution to avoid deletion was to reduce the size and better focus them even if that meant splitting up related templates and creating a new parent one. So yes, the smaller one is better and the larger one would probably get deleted if the size was not reduced TfD. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on this consensus I'm reverting back to the simplified version; I'd appreciate it of others kept an eye on it too. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Reminder: Consensus = Ideally, achieving consensus requires serious treatment of every group member's considered opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.51.63 (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

In over a week, a total of three editors (including myself) posted their opinion and all preferred the simpler version. We cannot wait forever for everyone to give their opinion, as some never will because it is not within their area of interest. Normally, I would have also posted a notification on your talk page as well about the discussion, but since you use a constantly changing IP address, there was little point to doing so since I had no way of knowing if you'd ever get the message. I did post on the template's talk page. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

A Consensus of Three, Tres, Trois 3 ... Some Concensus Tyranny of the Minority VANDALISM at WIKI continious by THE ABOVE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.128.29.40 (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2009

Australian Aviation magazine - perhaps others

I think I may rewrite and expand 1989 Australian pilots' strike (User:Russavia/Strike), and one of the sections I will include is a list of the airlines which operated in Australia during the dispute (User:Russavia/Strike#List_of_charters). I have had a look at airliners.net and have managed to find some photos of some of the aircraft which were flying down here at that time, but what I am missing is usable references. I remembered seeing a Hawaiian Airlines TriStar in Perth at the time, and managed to find photographic "evidence" of this. And I am sure that I am missing other airlines and aircraft. Does anyone out there have copies of Australian Aviation magazine going back to this time, or perhaps other magazines (Flight, etc) which may have covered this? Any help with providing references for these would be appreciated. Can contact me via my talk page if you wish. Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried the online back copies of Flight at www.flightglobal.com MilborneOne (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The following information is all from Gordon Reid's monthly Traffic section in AustAv (Aerospace Publications Pty. Ltd. Weston Creek ACT, ISSN 0813-0876)

No. 54 January/February 1990, p83-83

Aeromaritime 737-300 F-GFUA for Australian Airlines (AA)

Air 2000 757-200s G-OOOI/J for Ansett (AN)

All Nippon 747-200s JA8174 and JA8181 did SYD/ADL/SYD once each before & after the Australian F1 GP; both AN & AA shared both a/c

America West 737-300s N166/167/168AW for AN; Ansett 737-300s VH-CZM/O/P went to Am. West in return

Arrow Air DC-8-62AF N791AL for Ansett Air Freight; appears to be the first aircraft to be chartered, arrived MEL 28/8/89 and into service the following day

Brittania 737-300s G-BNRT & G-BOLM for AA

Dan-Air 727-200 G-BPNS (ex-Ansett) for AA

Garuda DC-10-30s that were normally laid over in Perth as part of normal ops were used to fly PER/MEL/PER; nearly all of Garuda's DC-10s were apparently used & both airlines shared the a/c. Garuda also did Port Hedland/PER using a variety of DC-9-30s for AN

Hawaiian - the L1011 you saw was N763BE; it did a single SYD/PER/SYD shared by both airlines

737-300 G-MONP leased by Inter European from Monarch used by AA

Lauda Air 737-300 OE-ILG for AA

Monarch 757-200s G-DRJC & -MOND for AA

Omega Air 707-300 EL-AJT leased by AA but never actually operated

Paramount 737-300 G-PATE leased by the Queensland Govt. for AN

Royal Brunei 757-200s V8-RBA/B/C leased one-at-a-time by the Northern Territory Govt. and shared by both Airlines; V8-RBC appears to have been the first passenger a/c to be leased, entered service 2/9/89

Singapore A/L A310-300 9V-STP did a one-off DRW/PER/DRW for AN

Trans European 737-300s OO-LTA and HB-IIA used by AA

JAT 737-300s YU-AND & -ANJ used by AA for about six weeks then used by AN

No. 55 March/April 1990, p102

Inter European 737-300 G-BNGL used by AA

Dan-Air 727-200 G-BPNS replaced earlier a/c

The RAAF transport fleet was also heavily used until 15/12/89; IIRC 707s, C-130s, HS.748s and even the Caribous. Anyone in GA who had a Cessna 310 or Beech Baron or anything bigger made a lot of money. There were six DC-3s flying out of YSBK; IIRC one had an incident on landing with the Canberra Raiders Rugby League team on board. YSSYguy (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Some more info

No. 57 June 1990, p78

AN used a leased a/c for the last time on 31/3/90, however 737-300 G-PATE commenced flying with East-West on 1/4.

No. 58 July 1990, p54

AA finished with its use of leased a/c on 25/4/90; East-West ended its use of G-PATE on 30/4/90.

A large proportion of the a/c used by AN were owned by AWAS and were on lease to the various airlines which then sub-leased (or in the case of G-MONP sub-sub-leased) to AN. YSSYguy (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Requesting help regarding the airlines LACSA/TACA/TACA COSTA RICA

There has been controversy regarding the naming and content of the article Lacsa, due to its relationship with Grupo TACA, and the recently created TACA Costa Rica. Please see the discussion here. I just do occasional edits on Costa Rican and Brazilian airlines (I am not an expert on the subject), so any advice, experiences with similar cases, and provision of reliable sources (publicly available) is welcome. Please drop by and help us resolve the confusion in order to fix the content and accuracy of the Lacsa article. Thanks.-Mariordo (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this helps you but

Grupo TACA is part of a Conglomerate, and is being merged with another Multinational Conglomerate by way of a Parent Company forming a holding company.

Some airline simpletons, are discourging people from trying to explain these concepts, by practicing tyranny of the majority by a small editing minority by using their abilities to figure out how wiki works.

Sorry you are having any problems with this. There are many of us on WIKI trying to make it clear and understandable in the most simple and least boring terms possible. 166.128.29.40 (talk) 05:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 166.128.29.40 (talk) 05:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Basically, the Banana Republic airlines were brought together under a multinational "Grupo" business organization, and from there the individual airlines identities were branded as a common conglomerate multinational airline organization called and branded simply as TACA.

National Pride of the former Flag carrier airlines followers, employees, and citizenary maintains a desire for many of the TACA brands to still be representative of their individual countries, but basically this confusion is of all the different parties is not being recognized in the pages of Grupo TACA on wiki.

Kind of like how many people still think Delta Connection is an airline! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.176.75.82 (talk) 03:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. No offense intended in Banana analogy. Much of Central America is admired and adored by aviacion oficiandos - sin los acentos gramaticas. desculpa. 32.176.75.82 (talk) 03:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Peer reviews and doubts about editing in Aviation Articles here at Wiki

Folks, I would like to encourage you to feel free. This is not a totalitarian setting we are living in. Try to make it conform without being over the top on ABSOLUTE STEPFORD STRUCTURE.

IF you find or feel there is a better way of putting information in to be more clear, accurate or fair... feel free and do it. WIKI should be a place for additonal knowledge, insight, and wisdom. Problem is way too many of us invest way too much time trying to make people understand certain issues, and others do not seem to care about the accuracy of these issues, especially when it comes to big airline business practices that just seem to get glossed over because they are confusing, or complicated.

Maintain the fight for clarity. GCH 32.176.75.82 (talk) 04:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)