Talk:Star Alliance/Archive 1

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

SAA & SWISS

Are South African Airlines and Swiss now members of the Star Alliance? The article is inconsistent. For example: "August 26, 2005 - Swiss International Airlines and South African Airways become full members. " I can find no reference to this anywhere and the rest of the article suggests they are to join in 2006. --Adam 20:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

statistics

Would somebody have any idea how many miles Star Alliance flies on a daily basis ?( give or take a few hundred miles or so). Needle in a hey stack!!! Rob

I've updated some of the statistics as per here [1] but don't know where the daily flights number comes from so haven't changed that although I guess it's changed (indeed, I'm sure it will change on a daily basis because flights don't operate every day, so I guess it's an average over a week or so) Iancaddy 15:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Future Members

Based on ATW July 2007 issue, they are stating that Air China is a member of Star Alliance, with Shanghai and Turkish still future memebers. Can this be clarified.

Does anyone have any information as to when the potential/future members would be joining Star Alliance?

Bmaganti 16:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Shanghai Airlines and Air China will most likely join next year. The potential future members are airlines that have expressed an interest in joining but have not formally applied or been invited yet. Dbinder 16:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

About the cross-ownership

Dear All,

Where can I get the alliances' cross-ownership information?

Best Regards, Woody108

Air Canada Jazz

Air Canada Jazz should be added as a full regional member. You can see on their planes, it says they are a Star Alliance member. Any comments/suggestions? Dk16 18:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The are not Star Alliance Regional Members, they are members by virtue of Air Canada. By the same token, airlines like "Austrian Arrows", "Lufthansa CityLine", "bmibaby", "United Shuttle" and other regional airlines aren't listed either. --kjd 21:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
A "regional member" is a small regional airline that is a member, i.e. Adria, Croatia, and Blue1. Other carriers operating as Express, Connection, etc. are not members in their own right, but do offer member benefits. A Chautauqua Airlines flight operating as US Airways Express is a Star Alliance flight, but Chautauqua itself is not a member, for a Chautauqua flight as Delta Connection would be included as SkyTeam. Dbinder (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The Star Alliance website is a "somewhat reliable" source when it comes to judging about who is and who isnt a full/regional member--FMB 13:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Affiliated Airlines

What do people consider an Affiliated Airline? US Airways has America West, United/Ted, but should we include all regional airlines? Ben 05:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if SIA's 100% owned subsidiary, SilkAir is also included as an affiliated airline. There are also other Star Alliance airlines subsidiaries, are they counted as well? Affiliated airline is an airline that is a subsidiary (I believe counted only when 100% owned) of the parent carrier. Terence 16:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Star carriers affilated airlines are not member in the alliance, eg SAS ownes 100% in Blue1 but Blue1 is a regional member by its own. BMIbaby (BMI, low cost carrier) is not within the alliance. Many regional airlines operate their flights on wet-lease agreement for the main carrier eg. Lufthansa Regional, but they are still not members. Martin
Please look what I am doing so far on the affiliated members section. I started to incorporate this under each full member. Oneworld is listed like this and I think it clarifies which airline is affiliated with what airline. Most people would not necessarily know that America West Airlines is affiliated under US Airways brand. But of course some one could figure out Air Canada Jazz is under Air Canada. -Ben 12:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we need to observe at least two principles:
  • What is useful to the reader
  • That the official *A website is authoritative as to member status
Personally I deprecate how fussy the list of members has become. Knowing the ownership of airlines is not interesting for most readers of this article. By all means create a separate article on *A Affiliate airlines and link to it from this article, but what matters is such things as: does one get extra baggage allowance, flyer miles, lounge use because of this affiliation.
On this test, who cares (in this article) that Silkair is a wholly owned subsidiary of *A carrier SQ? You can't accrue or redeem mileage on other *A carrier FT programs and neither can you use their lounges or get any other *A (as opposed to SQ) privileges!
...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 17:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Only subsidiaries and regional carriers that actually provide alliance benefits should be listed. Lufthansa CityLine, America West, Air Canada Jazz would all fall under this category. However, bmibaby, Silkair, and the like should not be included since they have nothing to do with the alliance. DB (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposals for change:

Since four weeks have now elapsed without negative comment since I made the proposals below, they are now consensus for this article. ...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 13:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

change layout

I propose:

  1. The current (newly re-named) sub-section Star_Alliance#Full_members_and_affiliates revert to the old sub-section name of Star_Alliance#Full_members
  2. Creation of a new sub-section Star_Alliance#Affiliates
  3. Position the new sub-section Star_Alliance#Affiliates below the currently existing sub-section Star_Alliance#Regional_members but above the currently existing sub-section Star_Alliance#Future_members
  4. Removal of All affiliates from the re-named sub-section Star_Alliance#Full_members
  5. Populating the new sub-section Star_Alliance#Affiliates with only those affiliates that provide real (and referenced) specified Star Alliance benefits to all members of Star Alliance frequent traveller (FT) programs.

limited list of affiliates

Furthermore, I also propose that the current agreed list of Star_Alliance#Affiliates be limited to only
Lufthansa CityLine, America West, Air Canada Jazz, Air Nelson, Eagle Airways, Mount Cook Airline, Air Nippon (excluding Taipei flights), Austrian arrows, bmi regional; Lufthansa Regional operated by Air Dolomiti, Augsburg Airways, Contact Air; SAS Braathens. Any suggestions for inclusion or deletion (with references and arguments) be listed in the talk page section below until and unless consensus is reached.

proposed additions/deletions from limited list of affiliates

  • Add US Airways Express...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 08:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Add Swiss European Air Lines - FMB 12:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete SAS Braathens ...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 07:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Edits?

I understand you do not like putting each affiliated carrier under its parent, but that is the easiest and most convenient to someone viewing the article. Also all the other airline alliances are laid out like this. SkyTeam and Oneworld I think this would be the best way. I agree that we should not include any airlines that just happen to be owned by the parent company but do not provide *A benefits. Bmibaby-NO, America West-YES, Silkair-NO, Ted-YES, US Airways Express and Shuttle-YES and many more. -Ben 12:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I really feel that this article just isnt the same without the star alliance logo on the top of the page. Perhaps, another picture of the logo should be put in it's place. Greenboxed 22:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

maps

Some maps would make the article a lot more comprehensive ... hubs, member states etc.

I really like that idea! Greenboxed 01:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

SilkAir

Someone added SilkAir to the affiliates list. I am unsure that it is acutally an affiliate member of the star alliance. Should it stay? Greenboxed 19:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It needs to go. No Star benefits nor does it bear the Star logo; the other affiliates do. FMB 18:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok thanks, thats what I was thinking. Greenboxed 01:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
SilkAir passengers holding a Star Alliance Gold membership are not entitled to enter the lounge at Changi Airport. They do not have any Star Alliance privileges and there's no mention of Star Alliance anywhere on their website or their inflight magazines. I just verified my facts and it should be removed. Actually, I don't know why is there an affiliate members section. Star Alliance website has never mentioned anything about affiliate members. Maybe on the subsidiary airline website, they just put a Star Alliance logo, so that counts right? Terence 12:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
See the above discussion, Affiliated Airlines. Greenboxed 18:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Affiliates (2)

The new design for the affiliate list tells absolutely nothing about the airlines. It's not even possible to book flights on those carriers in themselves. I think the list should be reverted to the old format, with affiliates/subsidiaries listed under their respective parent, as is currently done in the oneworld article. DB (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  1. Each of the current affiliates listed are internally linked to their own explanatory WP article for further information
  2. Star Alliance generally has better integration than Oneworld. That is why I argued not to include an affiliate list at all. (for example, although Air Nelson is a separate company it deliberately subsumes it's identity under that of the Star Alliance member Air New Zealand) so the choice is really between listing them briefly here or deleting the list completely....Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 23:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The new layout with so-called affiliates right underneath their parent is terribly done. I also think that the Oneworld article and the way it's done there is awful. The reader wants to find out about which airlines are members in their own right at one glance. The current list is crowded and full of errors (eg. Germanwings, Condor, Freedom Air - who came up with that?) and I must admit I'm currently lost as to what has been discussed on here, as the affiliates section was alright as such. FMB 18:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
If you look above at the talk section headed Affiliate Airlines you will get an idea of the way folk thought (at least, those who bothered to comment. I shall restore the recent radical changes until a new consensus is reached...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 07:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Article class upgrade

I have recently upgraded the class of the article as it has recently improved in quality. There is more information and it is shown clearly so it reaches the next article borderline.

Comments are welcome below: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thebestkiano (talk • contribs) 16:57:35, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

AiRUnion

Why is an alliance of airlines joining another alliance? AiRUnion is an alliance. Where's the link that suggests that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Einsteinboricua (talk • contribs) 21:44:35, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Staralliancemembers08.JPG

Image:Staralliancemembers08.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Heathrow relocation

According to BAA's schedule published 6 July 2007 (was available on BAA website), Star Alliance airlines will be relocating to Terminal 1 on the following dates:

  • Air Canada - remain Terminal 3
  • Air China - remain Terminal 3
  • Air New Zealand - 5 May 2008 shift from Terminal 3 to Terminal 1
  • Austrian Airlines - 25 October 2008 shift from Terminal 2 to Terminal 1
  • Croatia Airlines - 25 October 2008 shift from Terminal 2 to Terminal 1
  • Lufthansa - 25 October 2008 shift from Terminal 2 to Terminal 1
  • SAS - remain Terminal 3
  • Singapore Airlines - remain Terminal 3
  • Swiss - 25 October 2008 shift from Terminal 2 to Terminal 1
  • TAP Portugal - 25 October 2008 shift from Terminal 2 to Terminal 1
  • Thai - remain Terminal 3
  • United - 5 May 2008 shift from Terminal 3 to Terminal 1

Of course this does not mean that those remaining will be there permanently, but plans are for Air Canada, Air China, SAS, Singapore and Thai to not move in 2008.

BMI, LOT, Asiana and South African Airways are already at Terminal 1 Libertyscott (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Network requirements

Does the Star alliance have any influence on the network of its members? At least the SAS and the Air New Zealand do not overlap well. SAS flies to Bangkok and Seattle but not to Singapore and San Fransisco. Air New Zealand flies to Singapore and San Fransisco but not Bangkok and Seattle. Singapore and San Fransisco are hubs of Singapore airlines and United Airlines where the SAS don't fly. And so on. Do the alliance members care much about the transfer possibilities? -- 217.209.46.99 (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it "Network Co-ordination" is in fact the whole point for the existence of airline alliances. So the short answer is Yes. Roger (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This user removed my edits for Potential members: Greenboxed

User:Greenboxed removed my edits for Continental Airlines high likelihood of joining Star Alliance. I disagree that it should be removed. The removed edit was:

He also removed the following edits (from someone other than me):

  • Argentina Aerolineas Argentinas, is a candidate especially since the alliance lacks a South American partner.[5]
  • Belgium Brussels Airlines (Brussels Airlines) – Recent news communicated that Brussles Airlines is in talks with major alliances to negotiate about a potential membership. Also announced in the news was that Lufthansa is look into buying the airline this year, which would imply that it will join the Star Alliance.

I think he erred in removing this. Can other editors please weigh in on this matter? Thank you!--Inetpup (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

From WP:NOT: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Indeed the very references that are used speak of ongoing 'talks' and say airlines 'could' join SA. It doesn't sound very definite. This puts in question, however, the entire section of 'Potential Members' as none of them is definitely going to join, and the section seems to serve only as a crystal ball. NcSchu(Talk) 16:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the whole section should be removed, as it has been in the past. Wikipedia is not a forum for speculation or a place for rumors. I removed three airlines from the list that have NO definate evidence that they would ever join star. ⒼⓇⒺⒺⓃⒷⓄⓍⒺⒹ (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D91078VG1.htm
  2. ^ http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/biz/5809078.html
  3. ^ http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/biz/5810738.html
  4. ^ http://www.suntimes.com/business/980709,CST-FIN-airline31.article
  5. ^ Star Alliance negocia la futura incorporación de Tam y "observa de cerca" a Aerolíneas Argentinas

Shandong Airlines (SC) and Star Alliance

Right now Shandong Airlines is not part of *A despite being owned completely by *A partner Air China. Although they use the same frequent flier program (Companion Pass) none of the Star Alliance benefits apply. None of the Shandong flights (SC) appear in the *A timetable or in any *A fare product tool on the Star Alliance website.

Right now Air One (AP) has the same frequent flier program as Lufthansa (Miles and More) however they are not considered a part of *A. Only a few *A have bilateral code-share agreements with Star partners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.217.117 (talk) 05:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Also from an e-mail from *A:

Thank you for writing to us at the Star Alliance Help Desk.

Shandong Airlines is not a Star Alliance member.

However, it is worth noting that the Star Alliance members include Air Canada, Air China, Air New Zealand, ANA, Asiana Airlines, Austrian, bmi, LOT Polish Airlines, Lufthansa, Scandinavian Airlines, Shanghai Airlines, Singapore Airlines, South African Airways, Spanair, SWISS, TAP Portugal, THAI, Turkish Airlines, United, and US Airways.

We hope this information is of help. Thanks again for contacting us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.217.117 (talk) 11:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Die Erde dreht sich von West nach Ost von Sonnenuntergang nach Sonnenaufgang

194.66.226.95 (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Page layout

How did the large blank space at the beginning of the article suddenly appear? Can someone please fix it. Roger (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Turkish Airlines

Turkish Airlines 40.000 Status Miles within 12 consecutive months in order to qualify for Elite Membership which valid for 2 years. Renewal, members residing out of Turkey need to collect 25.000 Status Miles either within the first year or 37.500 Status Miles within 2 years of the Elite membership.

http://www.thy.com/en-INT/miles_and_smiles/about_us/card_levels/kart_elite.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.10.128.156 (talk) 03:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Shanghai Airlines

Why isn't Shanghai Airlines listed under the section of Full Members. Isn't Shanghai Airlines a Full Member of Star Alliance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.68.165.52 (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I've added them.Anss123 (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Star Alliance Disasters

Hi Folks, User 166.129.137.227 constantly keeps adding a Star Alliance disasters section featuring the Madrid airplane crash of Spanair to this article. This is not a Star Alliance incident but a individual member airline one, so this should not be discussed in this article. We don't feature indivual airlines' service features, destinations, fleets, etc. in this article, so incidents and accidents should stay out of it as well. In addition to that disasters are not featured in oneworld and Skyteam articles too. I reverted his changes 2 times so far (NOT wanting to start a reverting war, but his reactions feels like his intention was just to bash on Star Alliance: "23:29, 20 August 2008 166.129.137.227 (Talk) (29,624 bytes) (m sure it does unless you work in marketing for Star Alliance. Thank you for flying ONE WORLD CARRIERS please)"

Can we agree to keep this out of the article? --Ota1ffm (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes. User also tried to add this incident to other articles, which have been reverted numerous time as well. FMB (talk) 09:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Right after the Spanair crash 166.129.173.97 (most likely the same user who insisted on adding bits and pieces of this crash to all kinds of articles) placed a Spanair pic right on top of the others. As Spanair is not a core member I think either the order should be changed or the photo deleted(?). Opinions? FMB (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Photos

Does this article really need multiple photos of aircraft belonging to each of the members? Some are even multiple photos of the same individual aircraft. Roger (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The text under the AUA 777 isn't correct! AUA isn't the biggest airline in EE. Maybe the *A member with the most connections to EE, but not the biggest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.87.199.118 (talk) 11:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

TAM Airlines

211.189.15.161 changed my addings to the Future Members section, mainly about October 7, 2008 TAM Airlines announcement. This user simply added one more company over all the member countings (from 21 to 22). Just wanted to remember that TAM Airlines is still a future member, therefore not considerated on the full members count for the moment. After integration procedures, i.e. the same way that Air India is following, it'll be considered a full member. Edit reverted to a new version. Forgiven722 (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Potential Members

I think the almost pure speculation about some "potential" members is getting out of hand. Do we really need lists of "Possible members", "Likely members", "Wannabe members", "Imaginary members"... you see what I'm getting at. Roger (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

A good part of it is speculation. Instead of policing it to make sure everything there is legit (which also may have a vague definition), it might be a good idea to just drop the section from all three alliance articles. DB (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I dropped it. There is no indication at all that Air Astana or Ethiopian will join *A. Code share or FF partnership is not a sufficient reason to be included here. LH alone has the following list of *A FF partners:

  • Aegean Airlines
  • Air Astana
  • Air India
  • Air Malta
  • Cimber Air
  • Cirrus Airlines
  • Condor
  • Ethiopian Airlines
  • Jat Airways
  • Jet Airways
  • Luxair
  • Mexicana
  • Qatar Airways
  • TAM

Shall we include all of them in the list of potential members? And there are even more airlines with which LH only codeshares and does not have FF agreements. And what about the partners of all the other *A members? It just doesn't make sense. If there is clear indication that an airline will join, we should move it into future members, otherwise, just leave it. --SmilingBoy (talk) 10:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, code shares or FF partnerships were an *A member indicator in the past, but you're right, this isn't a board where people can discuss about it - wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. So it would be better, to delete the potential members in all articles. Btw, TAM will announce their future membership on 1st october. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.87.199.118 (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


Last week there was an article on Air Transport World online, citing Star Alliance CEO Jaan Albrecht that *A was looking at/in talks with Copa Airlines, TACA and Avianca as new members in latin America as well as S7 Airlines and Rossiya in Russia, so maybe we should reinstall the potential members section but limit it to the airlines mentioned. Here is the link [2] Any thoughts? Ota1ffm (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

possible/potential future Members

Dbinder, you asked if someone could verify those possible future regional members... well, if someone really could they wouldn't be possible future members but future members....

anyway:

as SAS ownes the majority stake in arBaltic and a 49% stake in Estonian Air with whome they have a close coopeartion, so it's very likely that these two airlines will go the way that Blue1 already went and join the alliance as Regional Members.

Air One is very close with Lufthansa and fully integrated in Lufthansa's Miles&More FFP. In fact they are the only fully integrated Airline that is not a Star Alliance member yet. But that seems to be a matter of time.

likely, SIA leaving to join SkyTeam because their routes overlap too much, is there any grounding for such claims?

At the very moment Austrian Airlines ownes a 49% Stake in Slovak Airlines. As the Slovak government is planning to sell off the remaining stake in that airline it is highly likely that Austrian will accquire these stakes. A Star Alliance membership is absolutely possible.

Silk Air is a fully owned subsidiary of Singapore Airlines. I won't comment on that, as I have never heard of them being a candidate for Alliance membership, but doesn't seem unlikely.

Aegean Airlines and Lufthansa started cooperation last year and according to some statements in the German press both airlines seem to be very interessted in Aegean joining the Alliance.

Luxair has strong ties to Lufthansa and Austrian... might not be joining in the nearest future, but would definitely be welcome in the Alliance


Since you removed Qatar Airways from the list of possible members... It's no secret that Star is really interessterd in Qatar Airways. On the other hand Qatar Airways strengthened their cooperation with Lufthansa, ANA and United last year... they are definitely leaning towards Star Alliance.

They are at least as likely to join Star as TAM or SN Brussles etc. to join OneWorld / Malaysia Airlines to join Skyteam

Regards Ota1ffm

When I said verify, I meant that is there any indication that these carriers are interested? Technically, any airline that isn't already in an alliance is a "possible" future member. Dbinder 22:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I have completely removed this section. I think any of them will be welcome back if they have citations, otherwise directly contravene Wikipedia Policy — Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." --kjd 23:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I moved Turkish back to potential. They have not formally been invited to join, so right now they are simply trying to do so. This was the only one with citation, so I haven't restored any other airlines in the potential section. Dbinder (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


I removed the section on potential members entirely. As long as there is no official statement from Star Alliance, idle speculation about potential members (mostly without any source) does not fit into an encyclopedia. None of the airlines that were in the list (Air India, Jet Airways, TAM and Egyptair) have been mentioned in any Star Alliance press release. SmilingBoy 09:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I just think sometimes it's valid to give some credit to the rumors about potential members. With TAM announcement today, that makes three out of four matches to the previous list. Cheers Forgiven722 (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Just would like to add that Aerolineas Argentinas is basically owned by Iberia which belongs to OneWorld... I highly doubt that it can enter Star Alliance. I have no source for this other than knowing it. Mariano —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.169.117.71 (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The comments re: Aerolineas Argentinas sounds formal and is supported by two references however the text in those reference talks about the airline resolving financial issues to let it be considered by alliances such as Star Alliance. It is in no way a fact that it will join or that it has been invited, further references would be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alakazou1978 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

An image on this page may be deleted

This is an automated message regarding an image used on this page. The image File:AirNZ logo2006.svg, found on Star Alliance, has been nominated for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia image policy. Please see the image description page for more details. If this message was sent in error (that is, the image is not up for deletion, or was left on the wrong talk page), please contact this bot's operator. STBotI (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Adriaairwayslogo.png

The image File:Adriaairwayslogo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for Edit / Removal

I'm very much a new user, so thought I'd put this forward rather than editing it and botching it up:

Under the "Membership history" section, there's an entry 

   * 2001 — Ansett Australia became bankrupt, due to poor managament by Air Newzealand

Not only does the spelling tend to make it rather suspect, and it's unsourced, but there's considerable information under the Ansett Australia wikipedia entry that refutes the statement. Although the issue remains a politically sensitive one in Australian-New Zealand labor relations, in fact, it's well established that Air New Zealand made an ill-advised purchase of what was already a terminally ailing airline business. In any case, it seems to me to be simply irrelevant to a Star Alliance article to speculate on reasons for Ansett's bankruptcy. Could a more experienced user edit this? I don't want to wander in and make a mistake.

Acephalica (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The change made to Ansett Australia's collapse was edited by an IP user 60.224.21.203, twice... once on 29 June 2009 and another on 11 July 2009. I believe it should be removed if it is unsourced or tagged with a {{fact|date=July 2009}} under WP:Verifiability Aviator006 (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I was of a similar opinion, due to both unsourced (and directly contradicted) assertion, and irrelevancy. I've edited it.

Acephalica (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Star Alliance slogan

How do I add in the star alliance infobox (which is on the top right of the article) the slogan? It is THE WAY THE EARTH CONNECTS. I tried to add it, but it doesn't show up. --Einsteinbud (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This is because the 'slogan' is not part of the Infobox Airline Alliance template. Aviator006 (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
You can now add 'alliance_slogan' and 'headquarters' in the alliance infobox. Cheers. Aviator006 (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Logo on Aircraft

"Asiana Airlines was the first Star Alliance member to paint their aircraft in Star Alliance livery."

This claim requires a source. I challenge it's veracity: I believe 767's painted with Star Alliance livery were flying years before Asiana Alliance joined the alliance in 2003. A Carbine Flash (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with it. It should state, "Asiana Airlines was the first Star Alliance member to paint their aircraft in the current Star Alliance livery." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrarchitectkim (talk • contribs) 15:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
That claim also needs a source. Roger (talk) 08:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
found an old press release stating that Asiana was the first airline to unveil the new(or the current) livery Mrarchitectkim (talk) 09:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Not "first airline alliance", edited out

I edited out the statement that it's the oldest airline alliance. There exists no distinction between the established Star Alliance and those mentioned in [3]. This is a point for modification worth taking note of, and a good one to establish in order to reference the oldest-largest-awardestest statements in the beginning of the article. 81.93.102.185 (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the "Citation needed" tag from the first sentence (Star Alliance is the world's first[citation needed] and largest airline alliance). The issue needed is not that we need a citation - it is whether it was the first or not. It is pretty obvious that there were bilateral agreements before - but it is also clear, that Star was the first alliance in the now commonly used sense (an alliance with global coverage). So either we leave it like it is now, and state that it is the first alliance, or we remove that statement. In any case, no point to have a "citation needed" tag. --SmilingBoy (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-Member Affiliates

I suggest to only include subsidiaries where the parent has at least a direct or indirect shareholding of at least 50%. Currently, we have some random "non-member affiliates" listed where the parent only holds a minor shareholding (e.g. Luxair, Estonian, Ukrainian). I assume there would be a lot more in reality if we wanted to list all of them (e.g. JetBlue or Copa). I suggest to remove those non-member affiliates where the shareholding is not at least 50%, as nobody would expect these airlines to be a member of *A anyway. --SmilingBoy (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have implemented this change now. --SmilingBoy (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Lack of critical reflection and in-depth analysis

This article is very one-sided because it reads like a copendium of Star Alliance facts without bothering to explore the background in sufficient depth for a critical insight into the subject matter - ie there is no mention at all of the "other side of the coin". In other words, the article doesn't even attempt to highlight the shortcomings of immunised global airline alliances generally, and of the Star Alliance in particular - eg that the alliance's exemption from US antitrust laws permits its members to carve up markets and to collude on prices, which is illegal in almost every other industry, that its dominance at members' hub airports tends to reduce the number of independent travel options (independent of the Star Alliance) and invariably results in major price increases on prime routes to/from these hubs and alliance inter-hub routes, and that the leading members' disproportionate influence limits lesser members' freedom of action, all to the detriment of consumers. The article furthermore fails to state that this set-up could lead to potential conflicts of interest between individual members as the alliance grows, especially in economically turbulent times (very relevant to Star - eg if Jetblue wanted to join they would need a regional sponsor, in this case either Continental or United, both of whom would be very reluctant to see one of their principal domestic competitors join their alliance, or if Continental or United offer extremely low fares across the Atlantic that significantly undercut fellow alliance members Air Canada and Lufthansa to fill empty planes during the dead season in mid-winter), and that there are eminent critics of these alliances, including Virgin Atlantic founder and President Sir Richard Branson, Emirates Airline VP Tim Clark and former American Airlines CEO Bob Crandall. The article moreover doesn't discuss the dearth of financial data, ie how much it actually costs to put a mega alliance like Star into place and to keep it running, and to compare the relevant figures with additional profits generated (most alliances, incl. Star, usually only mention a difficult to verify headline figure for their alliance) and that supposed alliance advantages such as "seamless" connections between flights operated by individual member airlines tend to be most appreciated by people who generally don't pay for their tickets from their own pockets, ie corporate business travellers. Pimpom123 03:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You are asserting a lot of things that I think are far from proven. As far as I am aware, the alliances operate in compliance with antitrust laws as they received the necessary exemptions. The reason why these exemptions are granted is that there are severe legal restrictions for cross-country mergers of airlines, whereas there are no such problems in other industries. I don't think citing Branson as a critic is very interesting - his business model is obviously very different from the alliance model, and it is clear that he would critisise it. Furthermore, I suggest you get your facts right: Your example of CO or UA offering low fares undercutting LH and AC is a bad one - LH, UA, AC and CO have just received clearance from the DOT this year to operate a full revenue sharing joint venture across the transatlantic. However, I agree with you that a bit more background is needed why alliances exist in the first place and what the advantages (and disadvantages) are. However, I think this would rather fit in the general Airline alliance article, since these issues are not only related to Star. --SmilingBoy (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Smilingboy, I don't like the way you just wave away the entire issue. There is another side of the coin, and plenty of well documented criticism from the industry (interested and disinterested players alike) and this article ignores it entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.70.51.227 (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I concurred. The article currently reads like an informational brochure, not an encyclopedic entry. For instance, it is entirely unclear what is the purpose of the alliance, what are its sources of revenue and what its legal status is. A flood of trivial facts, which I began to clear, obscures the absence of important facts. With the great interest in this entry as evidenced in this vibrant discussion page, I think that we can have an excellent, fact-rich article about Star Alliance. TippTopp (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Just a remark: Much of the criticism mentioned so far is applicable to alliances in general - not necessarily only the Star Alliance. Criticising only one of them about issues that are applicable to all is just as unbalanced. The Airline alliance article has only a small "Issues" section which doesn't mention any of the matters raised here. Roger (talk) 08:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Edits, Part 2?

I don't know how/why, but the article went from being being nearly 100,000 bytes to barely 12,000 bytes. Also, the article goes from covering recent events to only covering to 2005/6. There was a ton of information that is no longer there.

Would this be grounds to have the article reverted?

Jakubz (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, is it just me, or has Airmario3 made two edits that were quickly reverted? Is there any way to stop him from making any more changes to this page? Jakubz (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Focus City/Hubs

Is there really a need to clutter the Members/Affiliates area with their hubs? NagamasaAzai (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I suggest to remove them again or put them somewhere else. Especially the focus cities are sometimes bordering on the ridiculous. --SmilingBoy (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually hubs are a very important feature of an alliance, almost as important as its member airlines. For a major part alliances are not about getting a person from A to B on one or the other carrier, the major part of traffic is connecting through one or even more of the members' hubs. Same does apply (to a lessor extend) to focus cities. So yes, I think the hubs should be mentioned but not necessarily in the members section. --Ota1ffm (talk) 10:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Since I had some time to do so, I removed all hubs/focus cities from the Members section and added them to the Co-location section (which now is Hobs and Co-location). I put them in a folding table. They are limited to what Star officially refers to as "major hubs". I hope you guys are more pleased with this. --Ota1ffm (talk) 12:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Removed Kolkata from AI hubs as it is not one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.255.99 (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Once again removed Kolkata & Chennai from AI Hubs as AI runs a 2 hub operation from DEL & BOM, as it has for decades. Kolkata & Chennai are major cities in India but that alone does not qualify them as AI hubs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.78.173 (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Air India

Air India is listed as a “Former member airline”, however Air India was never a member of SA, so it cannot be a former member airline. And furthermore, the current situation is unclear, articles like this one indicate that a membership of AI in SA has not been ruled out completely. I admit, I regard it being very unlikely, and think Jet Airways will - rather sooner than later - join SA while Air India will opt for SkyTeam membership, instead. But this is just my guess and anything but a reliable source. So, while it definitely cannot be considered a former member, should Air India still be listed here as a possible future member? Any ideas?Marbod Egerius (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft in Star Alliance livery

Clearly time to delete this ever growing table, while it was unusual it was notable but as every operator uses the livery a list of indiviudal aircraft is not really encyclopedic. Propose that the table is deleted, any comment, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You have my backing. :) - Rgds. Planenut(Talk) 00:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
You may wish to comment this matter here.--Jetstreamer (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Airlines being courted/considering membership

Hi. I am not sure this section should be here or that some airlines should be listed. Some of the entries are just speculation.

  • Air Astana is listed because it wants to join an alliance and is looking at star as an option, i don't think that is a basis for listing it.
  • Air Austral, the source isn't English for one, but it says in the table it could join by may 2012. Nearly a year ago, there doesn't seem anything solid to support it. No news since.
  • Air Malta, had talks back in 2009. Nothing more. No news since.
  • Caribbean Airlines. Not sure.
  • Luxair, is listed just because Lufthansa owns 13%, nothing even suggests it will join star.
  • PIA, just because of joint venture with Turkish Airlines. It says in the article "his joint venture may act as a first step for Pakistan International Airlines towards becoming a member of Star Alliance". That is just speculation.
  • UTair Aviation. Not sure

What are your thoughts please? --JetBlast (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I would remove the section entirely. I think it fails WP:CRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Considering membership is certainly not "almost certain to take place". The future members section (currently EVA Air) and the section on airlines that have actually applied (currently Jet Airways) I think are reasonable to keep. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed per Hawaiian717 - just delete them all. MilborneOne (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm with the others. I don't think the subsection really adds anything, just remove it. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

US Airways

There has been numerous mini-disputes or "rumors/speculations" that US Airways will leave Star Alliance and join Oneworld with American Airlines. Numerous news reports and press releases covering the merger mention nothing about US Airways joining Oneworld while it only states that American Airlines will retain its membership in Oneworld. The airline will leave Star Alliance once the US Airways name and brand disappears after the merger is completed (while the merged carrier will be called "American Airlines"). 68.119.73.36 (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Non-member affiliates

The reasons for removing this article Talk:Oneworld#Non-member_affiliates --JetBlast (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Lounges?

Based on Star Alliance's website, there are Star Alliance lounges in Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport, Los Angeles International Airport, London Heathrow Airport, Chūbu Centrair International Airport and Ministro Pistarini International Airport. Why aren't they mentioned in the article?Maodi xn (talk) 04:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Benefits of Star Alliance for passengers and for airlines?

The article makes it absolutely not clear, what are the benefits of joining an alliance for an airline, and what are the benefits for the passengers (I am guessing code sharing, but...). Also, I don't think there is anything about the requirements, that the airlines have to meet in order to join (For example Russian UTAir apparently wanted to join, but didn't meet the requirements. What exactly did they do wrong?)

198.84.222.39 (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Air India

Please do not put Air India into the current members section as the airline will not officially join until 11 July 2014 (it is only 1 July 2014). Rzxz1980 (talk) 03:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed Clumsyone (talk) 07:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

When, exactly, is Summer 2014?

There needs to be an edit for when Avianca Brazil is joining. In a classic case of systemic bias, someone from the Northern Hemisphere has incorrectly interpreted the source information of the "second quarter" of 2014 as "Summer 2014". April May and June 2014 is NOT summer in Brazil.203.161.10.6 (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to "summer". MilborneOne (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 July 2014

Hi. Recently found information on Air india joining star alliance. I would like to include air india as a member because it is listed in the star alliance website.Here are the links http://www.staralliance.com/en/services/map http://www.starallianceemployees.com/about-staralliance/member-airline-ceo.html http://www.starallianceemployees.com/about-staralliance/member-airlines.html http://www.starallianceemployees.com/about-staralliance/member-airlines.html?tx_mprefguide_pi1%5BshowUid%5D=30&cHash=2a981fdc5da60bfee95d22271a4e3665


Airplane54 (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  • The references show that Air India does not become a member until 11 July 2014, please wait a few days. MilborneOne (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Negative24 (talk · contribs) 19:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

The tables in this article add lots of meaningful information to this article. Article is heavy in data but I don't know of anything else that should be added to the article.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    Two sentences in the Expansion during 2011 and beyond section sound like journal entries. They are The new decade saw the Star Alliance adding new members, but also losing some due to corporate restructuring and collapse. and 2012 was a year filled with several departures, new members, and restructurings. Not that big of a deal but need to be changed.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    I removed the long list of current members in the lead since it doesn't summarize the article and is already included in the sections below.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Last major edit occurred last September.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments

@MrWooHoo: Looks good. I've updated the review page. -24Talk 20:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 July 2014

Star alliance has added Air India now on home page. http://www.staralliance.com/en/ Please let me edit Airplane54 (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome to edit the article when it gets to the 11 July, not long to wait only a few more hours. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Air India Affililates

Does Air India Express and Air India Regional count as Star Alliance affiliate members? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airplane54 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Reading through the press releases and the sources provided, there is no mention of Air India Regional or Air India Express being members (only Air India) is a member. Avianca Brazil is a subsidiary of Avianca (who is already a member) but it is not a affiliate member. They are suppose to join sometime in the summer. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Well air india sells tickets for air indi express like united for united express. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airplane54 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

But Air India Express has its own website (http://www.airindiaexpress.in/). United Express does not (it is a brand name). 68.119.73.36 (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Airplane54 (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Silk air has its own website and it is an affiliate member of Star AllianceAirplane54 (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Air India DOES NOT sell Air India Express flights on its website in its own right. It links to Air India Express and those flights cannot be directly purchased with an AI code. Air India Regional however are sold directly on their website with an AI code showing that it is operated by Alliance Air for Air India Regional. There are destinations operated solely buy AI Express that cannot be accessed on through AIClumsyone (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Former member affiliates

Do former member affiliates that have been listed with their parent former member airline need to be duplicated in the former affiliate lists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clumsyone (talk • contribs) 18:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Star Alliance. 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 23:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Star Alliance. 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 15:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Flag icons?

Hello all! Many Wikipedians have constantly been reinstating flag icons onto this page. However, about 3 months ago, Miniapolis, a GOCE copyeditor, removed said "flag icons" per WP:TOOMANY. What is your opinion? Honestly, I agree because there is too much clutter, and it isn't appropriate for there to be so many icons in the tables. Cheers! MrWooHoo (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorting issue on flag icons - 2017-10-12

the default sort is alphabetical of the airlines, but when you click on the sort-arrow again on members, it *appears* to sort by the official name of the flag's nation as opposed to the airline name (e.g. South Africa sorts ahead of Singapore because the official name is R.S.A., and Adria Airways is sorted way down the list because it hubs in Slovenia etc) is this a feature or a bug ?

RfC: Should flag icons be removed in the tables?

Clear consensus answer: no, flag icons should be kept in the tables. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should flag icons be removed in the "Member airlines and affiliates" and "Former member airlines and affiliates" per WP:TOOMANY? MrWooHoo (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep: I think in the case of alliance, they show the spread and presence of the alliance across the world. Wykx (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove: They clutter the article and also, why is a national flag an appropriate icon for an airline? Klaun (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep: As a matter of function the flags harmlessly augment the display of relevant information. In these tables question of clutter not only is no more than a matter of taste, but is a matter of perception, and accordingly not compelling as a basis for argument. For one thing, the flags do not interfere with the acquisition of information, but aid and supplement it; accordingly it would be illogical to regard them as clutter. As for why a national flag might be appropriate: although in fact national flags have in fact long been associated with many airlines, in this connection the significance is not that of an icon of a particular airline, but an indication of regional connections, which certainly is relevant in context. Note too, that WP:TOOMANY hardly applies; it refers mainly to clutter in text, where icons are visually and lexically disruptive, rather than in tables, diagrams, or captions, where the function and acceptability of icons are altogether different. JonRichfield (talk) 06:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep I think it looks nice, which I have no idea if that's a policy but it certainly makes the article easier to read than a table of text. It's most certainly not too many. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep they are non-redundant in this international context, otherwise it would be advisable to add country names instead, which would be definitely more clutter for readability. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is helpful to know what countries the member airlines are based in. The flag icons provide this information less intrusively (and more aesthetically) than writing the country names. Maproom (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't think there is any reason to eliminate the flag icons. It is helpful for the reader to know what countries the member airlines are from. The icons provide more relevant information to the article, and the flags do not interfere with any aspect of the article. Visually, it also looks nice and it is not redundant in any way. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am often critical of the overuse of flags in tables, however in this case they present very relevant information for a valid purpose. I reviewed MOS:FLAG and this usage appears to comply with all recommendations, and violates none of the exclusions. Alsee (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Olympic airlines

Olympic airlines is not currently listed on the website, over at the Connecting partners page. It is mentioned here though. MoHaG (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

27 or 28 members?

https://www.staralliance.com/en/about says "Today, Star Alliance has 28 member airlines...", but only shows logos for 27 members. Anyone know what's happening? Have they added one or dropped one and not finished updating their own website? Ben Aveling 11:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The Avianca logo/link goes to both Avianca and Avianca Brasil who are still a member until the 1 September 2019. MilborneOne (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
What happens 1 September (which is tomorrow)? Ben Aveling 05:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Avianca Brasil is no longer a member from the 1 September, although I understand the airline has stopped flying anyhow. MilborneOne (talk) 08:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Missing the obvious (and important) info from the lede

I'm often astonished when editors leave out obvious (and important) things in an article, especially the lede. Remember, an article's lede should answer the obvious question a reader might have when first encountering a subject. This one has the who. when, and where (I guess) but (strangely) not the what and why. Was it created for marketing and advertising purposes to promote the member airlines? To help streamline air operations to benefits passengers around the world? To create a global cartel to exercise monopolistic control over air travel? (Just kidding.) Danged if I know, 'cause nobody bothered to include it.

Did no one think to include this rather obvious and important point? Why not? __209.179.13.130 (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Because the explanation and all the information needed is in the Airline alliance article linked in the first sentence. MilborneOne (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for replying but your answer wasn't what I was expecting, especially from someone with such a long and distinguished Wikipedian career. Sure you can can click on a link and eventually find your answer - but why? Why not take the trouble to put it where it belongs, right there. You remind me of a former student who whined about having to add a couple of sentences to his paper. I wish I had some expertise in the subject as I would fix it myself. Why you think it's unnecessary to add a couple of sentence to provided needed info is truly baffling to me. Has this become the Wikipedia way? __209.179.13.130 (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for replying but I wasnt expecting a personal attack, you need to have a look at WP:NPA before you get yourself in trouble, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Let me just say that if anything I had written offended you, I apologize. I frankly don't understand why you would think of any of it as a personal attack but I'll defer to your judgement - I was simply offering what I thought was a sound note on improving the article. (I guess it's no longer a Wikipedia custom to have the "who, what, where, how, and why" in an article's lede.) BTW, I had forgotten to mention that the five airline's names should have been given instead of writing, "the five founding airlines (see the five airlines in the history section)", but don't worry, I have learned not to offer suggestions for improvements, so I won't. Again, my apologies. __209.179.13.130 (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
You asked why it had not been done nobody has said we cant change it in some way to improve the article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Just thought I'd mention in passing that six (ish?) years after MilborneOne explained that the article could be changed in some way - nobody said it couldn't be - someone else has come to the article and the immediate questions that sprang to her mind were, "Is this not a cartel? Why is this okay when a cartel wouldn't be? How does this presumably legal cooperation between companies differ from what would be illegal?" So she scanned the article for the word "cartel", but it doesn't appear. Then sh... all right, then I went to the Talk page and the only reference I could find was the poster here asking the same question. I can't answer it: I'm no expert on corporate law. Are the OP for this section and me the only people who wondered about this? In all this time? That seems pretty unlikely to me. Can anyone add a line or two to answer these questions, perhaps? - Invernalis (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Alliance/Archive_1&oldid=1170270168"