Talk:Hong Kong International Airport/Archive 1

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

Lifting of materials

Again, I notice entire paragraphs being lifted from third party sources, in this case taken wholesale from [1]. May I point out that this text is copyrighted, and should be edited or removed as soon as possible.

From [2]:

Copyright Notice
The content available in this website, including but not limited to all text, graphics, drawings, diagrams, photographs and compilation of data or other materials are protected by copyright. The Government of the HKSAR is the owner of all copyright works contained in this website. Any reproduction, adaptation, distribution, dissemination or making available of such copyright works to the public is strictly prohibited unless prior written authorisation is obtained from the CAD.--Huaiwei 13:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Is distribution or dissemination of the copyright notice prohibited too? :-) — Instantnood 13:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Erm...am I supposed to smile? ;)--Huaiwei 14:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Well well well, many HK-related pages were adopted from this page, and the page said free use is possible without any acknowledgement needed. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
And there lies in the pitfall in making assumptions like that. Copyright is not determined by url address, nor by a notice appearing in the website of the copyright holder. That copyright notice appearing in the specific website in question obviously superceeds those in other websites. Not that I want to be picky, but I think this lifting of materials is getting a tad overdone?--Huaiwei 15:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that very often the same or similar texts are available from more than one websites. The copyright notices may be the same or different. — Instantnood 18:56, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Another issue with lifting, even if the source says it is acceptable to re-use, is that we are converting the copyright. You can maintain copyright but still allow it to be re-posted, but on wikipedia, when you add content you assert that you are giving that text the GFDL. Using "free" content doesn't mean the copyright holder is necessarily cool with creative derivative works. SchmuckyTheCat 19:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Using "free" content doesn't mean the copyright holder is necessarily cool with creative derivative works. Why? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 09:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Because they often aren't. An artist might release a song and give it away free but then someone comes along and re-works it - many artists don't allow that and they hold the copyright so they have the right to not allow it. Same is true for text. For what reasons they have, you'd have to ask them, but it's not ok to take "free" copyrighted material and transpose it to the wikipedia license. SchmuckyTheCat 15:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, there are some copyright notices which specifically mentioned that even admendments to the original text and reproducing them is a copyright violation. While the above notice make no clear mention on this (the closest being the word "adaptation"), we should never assume that all copyright holders allow their text to be modified in an attempt to circumvent copyrights. Whatever the case, the above is a clearcut example of copyright violation, and I am making one last call for it to be resolved, failing which the text will be removed.--Huaiwei 15:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
But it said "no acknowledgement is needed"...what doess it mean? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
What does "it" refer to?--Huaiwei 16:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
The quoted remark. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
And where did you get this quoted remark from? I cant find it anywhere.--Huaiwei 17:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Click into any one of the PDFs and you would find it out in the left bottom of the last page. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 12:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Grr. The section "Recreational flying and the Government Flying Service" is like a mess! :( Soul1337 11:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Artificial island?

According to the text, it says

The airport was built on an artificial island reclaimed from Chek Lap Kok, one of the islands that make up the airport's 12.48 km² platform. It is connected to the northern side of Lantau Island at the new town of Tung Chung.

Is HKIA really built on a fully man-made and isolated island, or is it actually reclaimed land extending from Lantau Island and the former Chek Lap Kok and Lam Chau islands?--Huaiwei 14:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

It depends on whether you consider islands which are not entirely man-made as artificial. Ellis Island, for instance, was a a former tiny islet greatly expanded by land reclamation, according to artificial island. (And FYI, the airport is connected to Lantau by two bridges, with a channel in between.) — Instantnood 14:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I just double checked this on google earth. Meanwhile, the statement that "expanded natural islands" await verification, failing which this cannot qualify as being an "artificial island".--Huaiwei 15:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
It's an artificial island by any reasonable definition. Chek Lap Kok and Lam Chau were just in the way of it being built. SchmuckyTheCat 16:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Heh I doubt so thou, because if an artificial island includes an expanded natural island ("greatly" has yet to be quantified"), then I suppose the island of Singapore is artificial too? :D--Huaiwei 16:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't know Singapore. But Chep Lak Kok and Lam Chau - really it's better to just say they contributed the material to build the island. SchmuckyTheCat 19:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Haha nah....that just dosent sound academic at all! :D The point is people would automatically assume that an artificial island, by the virtue of its name, has got to be an artificial one. Not an expanded island or anything. Otherwise, I can assure you loads of "artificial islands" are going to emerge overnight. I can count at least 10 off my head in tiny Singapore alone!--Huaiwei 20:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Jurong Island is cited as an artificial island too, though not entirely man-made. — Instantnood 20:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I searched on google, and only a miniscule number of articles specifically refer to Jurong Island as an "artificial island". Even if they did, it is almost always a foreign source most likely writtern by some less then informed journalist who didnt realise the island wasent exactly fully man-made, but formed out of 11 islands, of which 5 are of significant size (which then makes me wonder if the Singapore mainland qualifies if this one does. lol!)--Huaiwei 22:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
The difference is that the original islands are such a small percentage of the result. They were in the way, so they used the material in the existing islands as some fill. The rest is all standard reclamation. HKIA is recognized as artificial because of the engineering it took to create. Most artificial islands are probably created at some point where some other rocks stick out of the water, it's convenient, that doesn't make it any less a construct. SchmuckyTheCat 21:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Hmm...not eactly true. Artificial islands do not need a rocky outcrop to form, and there is no need to expand this definition just to add every similar situation out there. If you say HKIA qualifies merely because of the engineering used, then how does this differ from any other reclamation project elsewhere? Also, these two islands didnt exactly "get in the way" so to speak. Choosing a reclamation site obviously involves finding one with shallow water, and if it is marked by nearby islands, then all the more likely that it will be shallow. The site was thus far from a randon selection, and the islands directly contribute to its choice, rather then just coincidentally being there. And what makes you thnk non of the 10 islands I could think of have a similar situation whereby "the original islands are such a small percentage of the result"? ;) And as I said above, how much is this percentage before it qualifies, or are we into some ambigious definition we create ourselves?--Huaiwei 22:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
The waters around the former islands of Chek Lap Kok and Lam Chau weren't actually shallow. — Instantnood 05:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Abviously the above statement will not be taken into consideration at all if it is not verified. When will instantnood ever learn?--Huaiwei 13:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Seems like there's a tendency that you're making bold assumptions.. if I say that's not entirely true you want me to spoonfeed the evidence. Why don't you look for a map of Hong Kong before making bold assumptions? :-) — Instantnood 15:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you'll be interested to take a look at this article. :-) — Instantnood 15:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I have no clue at all what "bold assumptions" you are refering to here at all. If you are refering to my text on land reclamation, then mind telling me if you can find any source which says that land reclamation does not take into account the water depth as a major criterion in selecting a land reclamtion site? Even a primary school textbook will say the same thing, so if you consider this a "bold assumption", then are you insinuating your intellect is no better then a primary school student, and that your knowledge is as shallow as it is suitable to be filled in by earth?
Spoonfeeding? You know, I dont mind you calling me a recipient of spoonfeeding till kingdom come, because as far as wikipedia is concerned, your "spoonfeeding" is a wikipolicy you have to abide by. Perhaps it should be noted to admins that you consider a wikipolicy as trivial as a spoonfeeding session? And talking about admins...hmm.....--Huaiwei 16:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Instead of putting on a plasticy smile all the time, perhaps you might wish to then explain to us just how should that article be useful in countering my comments, or to this assertion that HKIA is an "artificial island"?--Huaiwei 16:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
My apologies if I have mistakenly taken your mentioning of "shallow" (" Also, these two islands didnt exactly "get in the way" so to speak. Choosing a reclamation site obviously involves finding one with shallow water, and if it is marked by nearby islands, then all the more likely that it will be shallow. " [3]) to be assuming the waters around the former islands of Chek Lap Kok and Lam Chau were shallow. I just meant to say that the waters there were actually not shallow [4], as you might or might not have assumed. — Instantnood 16:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
If I may just point out to you, your source actual supports rather then refutes my statements. Just look at the extend to which extreme engineering is needed because of the depth of water involved. I dont exactly see it saying it chose deep water because that is a superior engineering choice? Now obviously, a collection of factors are involved in the eventual choice of site. Do you have many others site in HK which does not impose height restrictions on existing or future urban developments, allows space for expansion without intruding into shipping lanes and anchorages, do not cause a greater ecological disaster, and so on and so forth? Insisting that HKIA is built in deep water does not make it the norm. It is the exception. How does it refute the statement that shallow water is prefered when chosing a land reclamation site? And how does this make it any more artificial?
Indeed, this site was chosen also because we do have two existing islands there, which reduce the total amount of land needed to reclaim, as well as providing a convenient source for seafill. The total size of those existing islands makes up almost 25% of the eventual expanded size of the island. I dont think they are exactly "rocks in the water" so to speak.--Huaiwei 18:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
To repeat, what I did was to tell the waters around the two former islands are not shallow as you might or might not have (wrongly) assumed [5]. — Instantnood 21:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

This may be relevant here. — Instantnood 18:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Cool. You may continue to give us tonnes of articles which calls it an artificial island. But if you still cant show a single engineering/scientific/geographical publication which calls it one, I dont see how this is going to be convincing material. The discussions over what an artificial island really is continues in Talk:Artificial island.--Huaiwei 18:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Page 1, Sentence 1 of the book "Site Preparation for the new Hong Kong International Airport" (written and edited by engineers, at $175 it's not throwaway) calls it a "largely man-made island". HKIA was in the Top 10 Construction Achievements of the 20th Century [6] (a fact to add to the article if it's not already there). The original Chep Lap Kok isn't there anymore, except for the shape of the eastern coastline.
That something natural was already there doesn't detract from it being an artificial island. That's like proclaiming the Panama Canal isn't a man-made waterway because it's built as links between existing lakes and rivers. SchmuckyTheCat 19:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
"Largely man-made island" is not quite the same as calling it a "man-made island". Any island which has seen its size expanded, even by 1%, is also a partly "man-made island". What I have been talking about, is if engineers generally refer to any semi-reclaimed island as a man-made island/artificial island in its own right, without having to say that it was partly man-made/artificial. And no, Chep Lap Kok is there, irrespective of whether its coastline can still be seen. I dont think the engineers dug the entire island up and sent it below sea level before doing the land reclamation?
Panama canal is an artificial canal, and no canal is ever considered natural, even if it follows the course of the original river. In this case, the Panama canal is not exactly a replacement of the Chagres River, and no, Gatun Lake is not a natural lake either.--Huaiwei 20:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Hood Canal is entirely natural because it is a fjörd and not a canal.
Hence the reason why the article had to state "despite its name".--Huaiwei 17:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
"Largely man-made island" and "man-made island" is a matter of worthless semantics. The difference in this case between minor reclamation and construction of an artificial project is distinct and recognized world-wide. Regardless, I did clarify the article to avoid any confusion. If you're concern is the category, good luck trying to find any concensus to split into "Artificial islands", "Most artificial islands" "Somewhat artificial islands" and "jetties".
You make it sound like a worthless discussion between "largely empty" and "largely full", when in actual fact, this is more of a distinction between "largely empty" and "empty". A cup which is "largely empty" is not empty. An island which is "largely man-made" is not "man-made", because if so, why cant they just drop the word "largely"? My concern was not over the category. It was over the article's unverified claims which need correction.--Huaiwei 17:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
(response to Huaiwei's comment at 18:24, September 30) These two articles mentioned the two former islands, while calling the current platform an artificial island [7] [8] . The debate over engineering, scientific or geographical definitions of artificial islands, and which is qualified to be listed, should continue at talk:artificial island and talk:list of artificial islands. — Instantnood 21:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
As I have already said, you can keep quoting all kinds of sources, just as you could quote this idea that Jurong Island is an artificial island. The same question becons. Are those news articles qualified commentators on what an artificial island actually is?--Huaiwei 21:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[9] here are more engineers (architects) calling it an artificial island. SchmuckyTheCat 15:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Heliservices (Hong Kong) Limited

According to this company's website, it operates from the Peninsular Hotel and has an engineering base at an unspecified site in the New Territories. Why then is it listed here?. -- Chris j wood 10:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Possibly fair comment in the strictest terms. However, the website's reference to Heliservices operating from the Peninsula Hotel is aimed specifically at its tourist customers who expect to have an in-town service without the necessity to travel all the way to CLK for a sightseeing tour. It is not intended as a definitive statement for the aviation industry, which has its own much tighter use of terms. Heliservices also operates out of the HKBAC at CLK and its cross-border services are based there. It has an established Chek Lap Kok-Peninsula aerial limousine service. Also, it is a sister company of Metrojet, based at HKBAC, both of them being members of the Hong Kong Aviation Group, itself a member of the Kadoorie Group of companies, which is also a major shareholder in the HKBAC.
For the record, Heliservices' engineering base is at Kadoorie Base in the Lam Tsuen Valley near Sek Kong (a detail not relevant to an international World Wide Web audience) and its main in-town pickpup heliport for tourists is currently at the Peninsula, following the closure of the Government's Wanchai Heliport a couple of years ago. Once again, it must be remembered that the website is intended for the general reader who wishes to know what services the company offers, and who has no interest whatever in arcane aviation detail.
Although I have no proof, it seems pretty obvious that the only reason Heliservices' engineering centre is not now at Chek Lap Kok is that it predates the new airport, and when the company was established in the 1970s there was no room for it at the old Kai Tak Airport. Originally it was therefore based at the Shek Kong Field but had to move from there prior to that field's takeover by the PLA several years before Chek Lap Kok became available. By the time the HKBAC was established at Chek Lap Kok, the new facility at Kadoorie Base was already in service. However, in essence Heliservices is an integral component of Hong Kong's aviation operations, not to mention one of its pioneers, and is therefore rightly considered native to Chek Lap Kok.
In short, this is an area where the differentiation between operations base and flight base is somewhat muddied since a helicopter service by its nature is for practical reasons more flexible than any fixed-wing counterpart and is not restricted to a particular plot of land, though coming under the same jurisdiction as the main airport.
It seems to me rather nit-picking to suggest that, because not all its flights originate from Chek Lap Kok and it does not actually service its aircraft there, Heliservices should not be listed here. It is a vital component of Hong Kong's internal aviation operations, all of which essentially are based at and controlled from Chek Lap Kok.
That said, I have no axe to grind here beyond a keen interest over many years in the development of aviation in Hong Kong and nothwithstanding my own position as webmaster to Heliservices, Metrojet, INSIGNIACLUB, Hong Kong Aviation Group and Hong Kong Business Aviation Centre, though I do believe it would be ridiculous and misleading not to include Heliservices here. :) kintakkintak

Check-in Aisles - Proposed deletion

I don't believe that listing the check-in aisles, and airlines using them, is a sensible use of Wikipedia. I would contend that this information is both too detailed, and too volatile, to be included. A quick survey of the articles on a few other major airports shows no sign of them doing this.

Can we establish a consensus on this?. -- Chris j wood 15:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Tethered balloon at the airport.

The article says that there is/was a tethered balloon licensed to operate at the airport. Actually it originally said 'locally' but in the context of an article entitled Hong Kong International Airport that can only mean at the airport, and I've made that explicit. But it does seem rather strange; doesn't it rather get in the way?. -- Chris j wood 14:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

No response to this, so I have deleted the reference. -- Chris j wood 15:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Peerreviewer script output

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • As per WP:MOS, please do not link words in headings.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 15 additive terms, a bit too much.
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
    • Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am now using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas. Thanks, Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox in template

Burgundavia changed the infobox format by using the template, but some of the data were missing after the change. — Instantnood 07:15, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Refer to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/infobox. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Infobox Airport There has been an on-going discussion about this.--Huaiwei 07:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Well yes, but the information should be moved to somewhere else in the article, rather than removed. — Instantnood 07:21, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
Data is not gone, just in an older version. What we need is a clear template for the stats, seperate from the infobox. I will be working something up soonish. Burgundavia 07:31, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Burgundavia. — Instantnood 13:31, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
I edited the old table to remove the dupe information then put it under the "operations" header. For a formatting fix, I moved history above operations. I don't quite like that but we'll see what we can do. SchmuckyTheCat 14:50, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Looks good, but doesn't solve the most pressing issue, that of multiple years data. I am going to move it inline, so that we can show that information. Burgundavia 04:44, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
I feel the capacities info should come with the original table, and not part of statistics. Its strange that the overal data only includes runways, and not list terminal information. Anyway, should this be discusses at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/infobox or over here?--Huaiwei 07:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
if you have concrete suggestions about what should go in, please put them on the infobox page. Thanks Burgundavia 08:24, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
Oh sure, but erm. Do I do it on that page, or its archieve page?--Huaiwei 11:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Here --> Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/infobox Burgundavia 11:36, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
IC! Thanks! ;) --Huaiwei 12:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I suggest putting the HKG logo in the infobox. How's this: http://www.hongkongairport.com/eng/img/hkia_logo.gif We could upload it under logo fair use. Gordeonbleu 17:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Nomination

Could we push for GA status for this article? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Former Destinations

On this airport article there's a section for former destinations. Why does this airport article have one? And why doensn't the other aiport article have one? If not all airport article have a section for former destinations, why shouldn't we delete the said section in this airport article? chris 08:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The previous former destinations section, deleted at 08:01, 25 April 2007, is copied here:
*[[Air China]] (Lhasa)
**[[China Southwest Airlines]] (merged with [[Air China]]) (Chengdu, Chongqing, Guiyang)
*[[Air India]] (Chennai, Kolkata)
*[[Air Nauru]] (Manila, Nauru)
*[[Alitalia]] (Milan-Malpensa, Rome-Fiumicino)
*[[Ansett Australia]] (bankruptcy) (Melbourne, Sydney)
*[[British Airways]] (Manila, Taipei-Taiwan Taoyuan)
*[[Canadian Airlines International]] (bankruptcy and subsequent absorption into Air Canada) (Bangkok, Manila, Vancouver)
*[[Cathay Pacific]] (Bandar Seri Begawan, Damman, Kaohsiung, Kolkata, Istanbul-Atatürk, Manchester, Munich, Port Moresby, Stockholm-Arlanda, Zürich)
**[[Dragonair]] (Bangkok-Don Mueang, Hiroshima, Kagoshima, Kathmandu, Kuching, Sendai, Tianjin)
*[[China Airlines]] (Singapore) 
*[[China Eastern Airlines]] (Zhoushan)
**[[China Northwest Airlines]] (merged with [[China Eastern Airlines]]) (Xian)
**[[China Yunnan Airlines]] (merged with [[China Eastern Airlines]]) (Kunming)
*[[China Southern Airlines]] (Kunming, Dalian, Lanzhou, Meixian, Nanjing, Wuyishan, Xian, Zhanjiang)
**[[China Northern Airlines]] (merged with [[China Southern Airlines]]) (Changchun, Dalian, Harbin, Shenyang)
**[[China Xinjiang Airlines]] (merged with [[China Southern Airlines]]) (Ürümqi)
*[[Continental Airlines]]
**[[Continental Airlines]] operated by [[Continental Micronesia]] (Saipan)
*[[Delta Air Lines]] (Anchorage, Los Angeles)
*[[Gulf Air]] (Abu Dhabi, Muscat)
*[[Hainan Airlines]] (Ürümqi)
*[[Hong Kong Airlines]] (Laoag, Sanya, Siem Reap, Subic Bay)
*[[Hong Kong Express Airways]] (Guangzhou, Laoag)
*[[Japan Airlines]] (Kagoshima, Okinawa)
*[[Korean Air]] (Jeju)
*[[Lauda Air]] (Bangkok, Vienna)
*[[Myanmar Airways International]] (Yangon)
*[[Northwest Airlines]] (Minneapolis/St. Paul, Seattle/Tacoma)
*[[Philippine Airlines]] (Cebu)
*[[Scandinavian Airlines System]] (Copenhagen)
*[[Shandong Airlines]] (Jinan, Qingdao)
*[[Shenzhen Airlines]] (Nanning)
*[[Sichuan Airlines]] (Lijiang)
*[[Singapore Airlines]] (Honolulu, Las Vegas, Taipei-Taiwan Taoyuan)
*[[Pacific Airlines]] (Danang)
*[[Palau Asia Pacific Air]] (Koror)
*[[Turkish Airlines]] (Bangkok-Don Mueang)
*[[Transaero]] (Moscow-Domodedovo)
*[[United Airlines]] (Delhi, Seattle/Tacoma)
*[[Varig]] (Bangkok-Don Mueang, Johannesburg, Rio de Janeiro-Galeão, São Paulo-Guarulhos)
*[[Valuair]] (merged with Jetstar Asia) (Singapore)
*[[Xiamen Airlines]] (Fuzhou, Jinjiang)
Peterwhy 11:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Please consider moving all the alternate information in the lead (different languages and scripts etc) and put them in the infobox instead.--Filll 17:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats not really necessary, other airport articles have the IATA and languages in the lead as well. Such as John F. Kennedy International Airport, Beijing Capital International Airport, or Berlin-Schönefeld International Airport. They are also available in the infobox of each article as well. Herenthere (Talk) 20:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Filll was behind the removal of all similar information in Singapore Changi Airport as well, despite failing to garner concensus from the relevant WP page to modify existing policies.--Huaiwei 13:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Northwest Airlines

Is LAX truly a NW destination from HKG? Most of the time it's a different B744 aircraft. (Just check NRT gate numbers on FlightStats.) (I think NW tends to use older planes for shorter routes e.g. HKG-NRT.) All passengers have to get off for security anyway. They may get one boarding pass for HKG-LAX but that's just because the equipment and seat configuration remains the same. HkCaGu 01:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It is covered in WP:Airports. Bucs2004 03:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Not exactly, as it mentions only "domestic hub". But as I interpret it, NRT is a hub and it's the same principle as a "domestic" hub (HKG & LAX being 2 spokes) and LAX should not be listed under HKG. NW has a bunch of 744s flying in then out two rounds a day, and most planes don't follow the flight number. It isn't an equipment type change, but it's too often an equipment change. HkCaGu 04:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed LAX. Bucs2004 05:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Diagram

I haven't been to the airport in a while, and this new Terminal 2 has me confused. A diagram of the airport island with terminals, train station, ATC tower in it would be useful. Wongm (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't know where to find one, but I can tell you that Terminal 2 isn't really a terminal. It's merely a check-in hall east of the railroad and street loop. Once you checked in, the underground train brings you back to the same old gates west of "Terminal 1". On arrival, it's still the same "A" and "B" exits on the west side. HkCaGu (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that - I though T2 might have been out in the middle of the field to the west. Someone has clarified the people mover article as well. Wongm (talk) 08:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
That would be me! And thank you for pointing that out. -Herenthere (Talk) 19:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Necessary paragraph

the section is already very wordy?

To comply with the Global Implementation Plan, the Civil Aviation Department plans to introduce satellite based Communications, Navigation, Surveillance/Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM) Systems to enhance flight safety and efficiency as well as to maintain Hong Kong’s status as a centre of international and regional aviation. The project will take 15 years and owing to the complexities involved, extensive studies and trials are being conducted before the new technologies are to be fully adopted. Currently, some of new services, including Digital-Automatic Terminal Information Service (D-ATIS), Digital-Meteorological Information for Aircraft in Flight (D-VOLMET) and delivery of Pre-Departure Clearance (PDC) over data links, are provided at HKIA to enhance the operational efficiency of both pilots and air traffic controllers.

I propose removing it in 3 days if no one objectsMichellecrisp (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Bus routes

Bus routes should be removed as per WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:NOT#DIR. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't see which point in your two links disapprove the existence of bus routes. Just as railway and ferry routes are added, bus routes should be allowed too. – PeterCX&Talk 02:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Listing of bus routes is like a travel guide. Also the listing is like a list of bus routes you might find on a bus stop. Wikipedia is not designed to be a reference point about how to get to/from an airport. The listing of bus routes has been discouraged in many airport and locality articles I have seen. You don't see it in this featured article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Gurion_International_Airport#Accessibility Michellecrisp (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
A good compromise would be to list the destinations in Hong Kong that airport buses serve. Do it in prose and not as a list as well. Bus routes are ok to include in a locality article (including an airport, which is in itself a suburb), but not in an overboard sense. My suggestion would surely be fine and would be consistent with a number of articles in Wikipedia. JRG (talk) 10:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Taxi

Luggage and bridge fees affect most airport taxi passengers, so why can't it be included in this article? Also, they are hardly GUIDEs, I would say. – PeterCX&Talk 02:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

and this happens in most cities in the world. this is an encyclopaedia. supplying information on charges for "airport taxi passenger" in fact makes this a guide. People can look up at travel guide on taxi charges to/from an airport. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Read the GA Singapore Changi Airport. Here it only said 'luggage and bridge fees are required', but not somethink like 'HK$20 are required'. That is even less 'guide' then that suggested in a GA. And of course I am not listing out fare-area relation chart, which is a travel guide. (GA means good article, not guide article, though) – PeterCX&Talk 15:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

International Traffic

Does HKIA only serve international traffic? Because how can there be domestic flights in Hong Kong? So technically speaking would HKIA be the 5th busiest airport in the whole world because there is no domestic traffic? I am confused. 69.255.197.173 (talk) 04:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, there are no domestic route for HKIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neofung (talk • contribs) 10:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A sketch map is needed

Show runway 1, the X like Terminal 3, Terminal 1 , the MTR station, the bus terminal, the Asia World Expo. Matthew_hk tc 08:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hahn

We have established project guidelines, and, according to them, Frankfurt-Hahn Airport is to be listed as simply Hahn in the destination tables. The same guideline also states listing of other secondary airports (Clark, not Manila-Clark, Girona, not Barcelona-Girona, Weeze, not Düsseldorf-Weese... and on and on). Any disagreements with this guideline, should be discussed at the appropriate forum ({{WP:Airlines]] or WP:Airports, and not here, as this naming convention affects all airports with flights to HHN, not just HKG. Jasepl (talk) 10:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

And besides, most of those airports are not located within the city served. HHN is located 75 miles from the center of Frankfurt according to the airport article. Snoozlepet (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Agree. This is the same for Ryanair flights from Dublin to Hahn, on the destinations table, it states Hahn instead of Frankfurt-Hahn.Toyotaboy95 - Hong Kong ☺ 04:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Jasepl, could you point me more specifically at this guideline please. The only thing I can find is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content, where it says:
Differentiate between multiple airports in one city using "-" (eg London-Heathrow), not (London Heathrow).
which seems to contradict, rather than support, what you are saying.
I must confess I much prefer Manila-Clark to Clark. When I first saw this name in the list, I had absolutely no idea where it was. I ended up doing a search on Wikipedia, which pointed me to Clark (disambiguation), and ended up a bit puzzled because I doubted very much whether any of the US cities listed there were big enough to justify a flight to Hong Kong. It was only when I saw this talk page's reference to Manila that I remembered Clark Airforce Base and the penny dropped. And I know a little bit about airports; Clark by itself is just too inpeneterable to the general reader. -- Starbois (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Since writing the above I've added Clark Freeport Zone to the Clark (disambiguation) page, so it is a bit easier to find. -- Starbois (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Per Hong Kong International Airport's website "Real Time Flight Information - Cargo Departures", it is listed as Hahn, not Frankfurt-Hahn for 6U flights.Toyotaboy95 - Hong Kong ☺ 11:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

UA focus city?

I just noticed recently that a user added in the intro paragraph to the article that "It is also a focus city for United Airlines". What makes Hong Kong a focus city? Is it truly a focus city? The destinations listed for UA is to Chicago-O'Hare, San Francisco, Los Angeles [beginning October 29], Ho Chi Minh City, and Singapore. What are your suggestions? Many Thanks. Bucs2004 16:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Per http://www.2wf.org/u-logos/united-airlines.html, I am listing HKG as focus city for UA. Toyotaboy95 - Hong Kong ☺ 12:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted this addition (as well as similar changes on Narita International Airport and Honolulu International Airport) as there is nothing that indicates that that page is a reliable source. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
And also, the only non-hub cities that UA flies to from HKG are to Ho Chi Minh City and Singapore. Barely a focus city. The only UA non-hub destination from HNL is to NRT, also. Can't call it a focus city. All the rest are to its hubs. Snoozlepet (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

North Satellite Concourse & SkyPier

We need some words on the North Satellite Concourse and SkyPier which were opened at the beginning of 2010. I would be interested in seeing a plan to see where they are on the airport site. Muchado (talk) 04:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

PRESS RELEASE
Airport's New SkyPier and North Satellite Concourse Officially Opened
(HONG KONG, 15 January 2010) -- Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA) today officially launched two new facilities: the SkyPier, a new cross-boundary ferry terminal; and the North Satellite Concourse, which is equipped with 10 bridge-served parking stands for narrow-bodied aircraft. The facilities have been soft-opened since mid-December 2009.

Airlines and Destinations Too Lengthy

This section is way too lengthy. Along with Cargo, this section clutters the entire page. Perhaps, we could move Cargo to a separate article such as "list of Cargo operations at Hong Kong International Airport" and then have a link to that article under this section. The main Cargo operators should have an article about a paragraph long instead of this list. If anyone doesn't object to this, I'll take this on in a couple of days. ∑∆∏ 23:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone else think there are far too many pictures of different airlines aircraft? Cathay and Dragon I understand but this is too many.

Hong Kong's Airport Grave violation of human rights not considered as Incident?

There is a huge bias about what is an incident or not, a transgender woman, was sexually abused in this airport, and it was hugely reported on local and international media, but there are persons that are afraid to acknowledge this grave violation of human rights as an incident, like the (HkCaGu) if we need some people from LGBT portal in Wikipedia coming here to show what an incident is an incident, we will bring them, there is not space for discrimination in Wikipedia. Rubashkyn (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Beside the fact that this article is governed by WP:AIRPORT, this incident has unfortunately not made the news beside an isolated report or two and has had no traction. It is very much unlike Erwiana Sulistyaningsih, the abused domestic helper who became headline news in HK and Indonesia. There is simply no notability. Nobody in the news industry bothered to follow up. The significance of this event is akin to emergency landings or diversions. No international attention. No longlasting changes. Whether an incident is an notable incident is determined by existing Wikipedia and Wikiproject guidelines, not a threat to "bring the army". Your bad-faith agressive attitude is not very much tolerated on Wikipedia. HkCaGu (talk) 07:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
The "Incidents and accidents" section is meant to devoted to incidents/accidents involving aircraft, not involving passengers in the terminal. Besides, WP:NOTNEWS applies here. --RFBailey (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


PLEASE NOTE This article is about HK international airport, many news and accident happens in the airport. Here I see a user trying to subjectively make a news more important than news that involves serious injuries or death, as such posting such on this article will be treated as self interest promoting via wikipedia standards. Please stop the editting war. The human rights incident do not belong, as it doesn't objectively fit into this article. Thank you. V-apharmd (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Rubashkyn, in the meantime I have placed this incident under the "history" subheading. V-apharmd, it is really news to me that controversies only belong on Wikipedia should they result in "serious injuries or death". Citobun (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I am assuming WP:AGF, though you will likely be editted out soon, take note. You need to understand that you are citing everyday happenings in an airport. The article is about the airport, not the everyday happenings, and while this might be of interest to a particular group of people, it serves as self-interest promoting as I mentioned above. Your article might have longer longevity if you include it in the talk page here instead, just giving you some pointers. Hope that helps. V-apharmd (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
If the incident received coverage in mainstream news sources like the South China Morning Post it is likely more notable than "everyday happenings". "Your article might have longer longevity if you include it in the talk page here instead, just giving you some pointers." <-- I don't understand what this means. Citobun (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Agreement on appearance on mainstream news warrants short mention as current event, however given time your citation will certainly qualify under outdated news and be removed. The talk page has less regulations, as such if you wish for your news to stay on wikipedia longer, putting it on the talk page is the way to go. Hope that helps. Again, always wp:agf V-apharmd (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
That's not what the talk page is for. And is there some policy on "outdated news" I am unaware of? Citobun (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request on 4 February 2014

Virgin Atlantic ending Hong Kong-Sydney flights on 5 May 2014. Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayinthesky/2014/02/04/virgin-atlantic-pulling-out-of-australia/5200401/. Rzxz1980 (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. I was almost going to mark this as "not done" because you weren't clear about what change you wanted to be made. However, I decided to go with my best guess, and I made this edit. Was that what you were wanting? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Rzxz1980 (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2014

14.99.137.213 (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. No request was made. (t) Josve05a (c) 13:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2014

Hong Kong Express Airways adding flights to Busan from HKG starting on August 7, 2014. Source: http://airlineroute.net/2014/05/12/uo-pus-aug14/

2001:4898:80E8:EE31:0:0:0:3 (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 21:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Add Busan as a destination for Hong Kong Express Airways with "begins 7 August 2014". 68.119.73.36 (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Done Mz7 (talk) 04:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Some "missing" departure gates

Please know that gate 15,23,60,62,64 is accommodating A380 flight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.101.203.237 (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


Since the Airport's opening in 1998, the signs in the departure area have read "Gates 1-80".

However, I found that there are a lot of gates that "didn't exist".

Those gates were Gates 9, 14, 20, 37-39, 51-59 and 72-80.

The last time I landed in Hong Kong, I noticed that Gate 20 has been added.

What has happened to all the others? I would really be interested to know. --Kylohk 14:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

When HKIA was built, they left a huge empty lot west (I think) of the main terminal for the site of some future terminal to be built when needed. I am guessing that these will become gates 72-80.WasAPasserBy 01:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the new terminal will only have 9 gates. I've seen images of its expansion from SkyscraperCity and it has at least 20-25 new gates, with more shopping.Herenthere 22:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously it is a lot simpler to write "gates 1-80" than "gates 1-8, 10-13, 15-36, 41-50 and 60-71"! The new satellite terminal will be numbered gates 81 up; it will clearly have more than just 9 gates!

Semi-edit Request

Can some add Tokyo-Narita to Hong Kong Express Airways destinations as the airline will start service there on 8 December 2014. Source: http://airlineroute.net/2014/10/09/uo-nrt-dec14/. 71.12.206.168 (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Done EoRdE6 (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2014

Remove Quanzhou as destination for Hong Kong Express Airways. Future route has been cancelled. [1]

|{{nowrap|[[Hong Kong Express Airways]

}|Busan,[2] Chiang Mai, Fukuoka, Kota Kinabalu (ends 25 October 2014),[3] Kunming, Nagoya-Centrair, Ningbo,[4] Osaka-Kansai, Penang, Phuket, Seoul-Incheon, Taichung, Tokyo-Haneda, Tokyo-Narita (begins 8 December 2014),[5] Zhengzhou[6]|2

98.225.37.49 (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the reference to support your request - Arjayay (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://airlineroute.net/2014/10/15/uo-jjn-oct14update2/
  2. ^ JL (12 May 2014). "HK Express to Start Busan Service from Aug 2014". Airlineroute.net. Retrieved 16 May 2014.
  3. ^ http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1581297/airline-hong-kong-express-criticised-after-scrapping-kota-kinabalu
  4. ^ http://airlineroute.net/2014/06/13/uo-hkgngb-jul14/
  5. ^ "Hong Kong Express to Start Tokyo Narita Service from Dec 2014". Airline Route. 9 October 2014. Retrieved 10 October 2014.
  6. ^ http://airlineroute.net/2014/07/31/uo-cgo-sep14/

Edit Request

Can someone remove "Tokyo-Narita (ends 26 October 2014)" from Delta Air Lines as the airline as ended that service as scheduled according to the source. 71.12.206.168 (talk) 05:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Done! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HkCaGu (talk • contribs)

Edit request

Can some remove the resumption date for Biman Bangladesh Airlines as the airline has resumed service to HKG and 11 November 2014 has passed. 71.12.206.168 (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request

Can someone add Naha to the list of destinations for Peach as the airline is launch this route on 21 February 2015. Source: http://www.flypeach.com/Portals/0/PressReleases/2014/141125-Press-Release-EN.pdf. 71.12.206.168 (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 03:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


Can someone add Koror(ROR) to destination by AirExplore as charter services .

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2015

Add "Düsseldorf (begins 1 September 2015),[1]" to destinations served by Cathay Pacific. Cwc19980930 (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC) Done, but next time please format your request the way I have re-formatted it above; don't just copy-paste the whole article because it makes it very hard to find what you want changed. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2015

"developmen"

66.74.176.59 (talk) 07:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit request for destinations of Cebu Pacific

Can someone add Kalibo to the list of destinations for Cebu Pacific as the airline launched this route on 02 March 2015. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.148.154.19 (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.cathaypacific.com/cx/en_HK/hidden-pages/special-highlight/travel-information/dusseldorf-port/dusseldorf-route.html?DESTINATION=DUS&DEPARTUREDATE=20150901&ARRIVALDATE=20150907
  2. ^ http://www.philippineflightnetwork.com/2015/02/cebu-pacific-offers-cebu-tokyo-and-boracay-hong-kong.html

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2015

Add Wuxi as destination for Hong Kong Express Airways Source: http://airlineroute.net/2015/02/11/uo-wux-apr15/ 98.225.37.49 (talk) 06:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

plus Added Joseph2302 (talk) 11:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Hong Kong International Airport. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 16:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

History section revised

I added some content to the history section as an extremely important bit of information was completely missing: The airport opened one year late because the government in Beijing, throughout the mid-1990s, objected to many aspects of the complex development plan, requiring long periods of negotiation with Britain and the Hong Kong colonial government, which prompted banks to stop extending project finance, which effectively halted construction on many projects. These objections were eventually lifted, but this is what caused the delay in opening the new airport by around one year.

I removed the statement that China agreed to a late opening as being somewhat irrelevant: First, I do not believe any such agreement was given by China. Second, the Chinese government themselves caused the delay. And third, what were they going to do? Insist the airport open on time? That would have been impossible. Or, say "never mind, since it won't be opened on time, stop and we'll just keeping using the old airport at Kai Tak"?

I am extremely familiar with this subject as I was a business journalist covering cargo, express delivery, airlines and ports in Hong Kong from 1989 until 1998 and covered the new airport project very closely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nealmcgrath (talk • contribs) 19:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2016

Add Brisbane West Wellcamp as a new destination for Cathay Pacific Cargo, begins 22 November 2016.[10][11] 167.123.240.35 (talk) 06:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

NOT DONE: Per WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, we list only outbound nonstop flights. Your sources only indicate an inbound. HkCaGu (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2016

|[Davao Airlines]]| Davao| (Seasonal on March 20, 2050)

130.105.120.252 (talk) 04:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2016

Add Davao Airlines as a new airline in Hong Kong from Davao, Philippines seasonal on March 20,2050 and as a new destinations.

130.105.120.252 (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request on 22 November 2016

Dragonair should be changed to Cathay Dragon throughout the article as the airline's official website now reflects the new name. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done

Gates 71-80

Should there be something to explain where gates 71-80 are? Because it seems that those gates do not exist, despite signs saying gates "33-80". TheCoffeeAddict talk|contribs 04:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2017

Add to passenger destinations: Virgin Australia, Melbourne (starts 5 July 2017)[12] 167.123.240.35 (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hong Kong International Airport. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit Request

Can some add "ends 28 October 2017" to Fukuoka on Cathay Pacific destinations as the airline is ending service there as per http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/airlineroute/272361/cathay-pacific-ends-taipei-fukuoka-route-in-late-oct-2017/. Also can someone remove "resumes 15 May 2017" from Scoot to Singapore as the airline resumed service. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Done Power~enwiki (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Blanking of fire services and hotels

@LibStar:, kindly explain your rationale for deleting information on airport fire services and airport hotels here. I don't see how "all airports have [fire services]" makes any sense. Shall we also delete information on the passenger terminal, because all major international airports also have passenger terminals? In what way does your rationale for deleting this content reflect Wikipedia policy? Thanks, Citobun (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

we don't include that airports have parking, and hotels unless notable. it's WP:NOTGUIDE. WP does not include everything. many airports offer car rentals, and again that doesn't appear in airport articles. this is an encyclopaedia not a guide to what the airport has. next thing you will want is a list of shops and fast food chains (Which I have seen and removed from airport articles). LibStar (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I am willing to concede fire services but not the other content removal. LibStar (talk) 03:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

major airport articles that do not list or name non notable airport hotels:

LibStar (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

United Airlines

Hello the last Day of the United Airlines HONG KONG to SINGAPORE service is on October 28th 2017. It will be replaced with LAX-SIN service. Please update under airlines and destinations. Thanks John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpwhelanua (talk • contribs) 21:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hong Kong International Airport. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Unprotected Page

Can someone unprotect this page please? 73.93.153.138 (talk)

Such requests need to be made at WP:RPP. This one is unlikely to be granted, however; the article has been protected six times since its inception, and for good reason. If you have a specific change you'd like to see, you may make an edit request. Or just create an account and take responsibility for your edits. RivertorchFIREWATER 14:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Hong Kong International Airport. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hong_Kong_International_Airport/Archive_1&oldid=1136802053"