Talk:Albuquerque International Sunport

ammenities
way to basic. needs to be expanded.Urban909

Too Many Images
IMO, this article has more photos than necessary. Furthermore, they are all from Airliners.net, with a copyright notice that the copyright holder has released all rights. I question whether this is truly the case. I know one of the photographers whose images are used, and will verify with him if the copyright box is correct. If not, I will mark the images for deletion as copyvio. -- Hawaiian717 19:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

National Airlines Flight 27
I can't find any other information on this flight (an incident in Nov. 1973 at ABQ). Can someone contribute more information about it? It does not appear in the list of aviation incidents. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.105.163.163 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC-8)

needs more images
a couple of pics from personal photos that are a good representation of the airport would be nice. mabye they can be put in here first, and then a desicion can be made about them. cheers Urban909

Terminal expanded twice?
"ABQ's terminal, which was expanded to its present size in the late 1980s and again in 1996, encompasses 574,000 sq. ft. of space."

If the terminal was expanded to its present size in the late 1980s then how could it have been further expanded (beyond its present size) later?

Fair use rationale for Image:Tblogo.png
Image:Tblogo.png 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 06:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Cavalcade of Wings
One of the notable features of the airport (to me anyway) is the Cavalcade of Wings. It may be worthy of mention by someone more knowledgeable. Jim (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

NMA destinations
I've denoted that two of this airline's four destinations are direct flights (only to be undone with unsatisfactory explanation), thereby increasing the accuracy of this article, because they were the only direct flights listed. For example, it would be cumbersome to list all of Southwest's direct flights from the airport, some of which do not transit airports that are basically hubs. WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT discourages the use of "via" descriptions for direct flights especially those that transit an airline's hubs. Given NMA's limited scope and the general lack of information about direct flights in airline destination lists (see WikiProject Airlines/page content) it seems that this is a good place for information about NMA's route structure. Synchronism (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Project participants have long settled that no distinctions are to be made between nonstop and direct destinations, and have also put a lid on airlines defining what's direct. As a result, Southwest's directs are never listed, and through-hub directs are not listed. However you define it, NMA's one-stop flights are very genuinely direct. Project participants have determined what's encyclopedic and what's not, what's to be included in airport and airline articles. Destinations are listed to give a picture of what the airport is like. Frequencies, gate assignments and former routes are not allowed. NMA's route structure is best left for the airline's article (in which former destinations are allowed), not the airport. HkCaGu (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you can consider me a project participant also please. But you are obviously making the distinction between direct and non-stop flights by excluding those that transit hubs [and all of Southwest's direct flights, whether or not they meet this criterion]. I agree that the flights in question are direct, what's the problem with noting their routing? I see no consensus and guidelines with language meant for exceptions like this.Synchronism (talk) 09:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just what are the exceptions of NMA? Many small airlines worldwide are like that. Nonstops and directs are listed without distinctions--that is the spirit of the long-time consensus. HkCaGu (talk) 10:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Its routes are public service routes and the direct flights are in NM, it's interesting to note how intra-state service radiates from the main airport. No they aren't. None of Southwest's direct flights are listed, and the reason for this has nothing to do with whether or not the flight transits a 'hub'. It is simply because so many do that the rest are not listed. If you are going to cite consensus, please provide a link to a discussion.Synchronism (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no distinction in listing. It is either listed or it is not. There might be some complications that require footnotes (see RJGG, RJBB or RJAA). NMA's type of stops are very common and other similar instances worldwide are not listed any differently. HkCaGu (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You keep repeating that there is no distinction and have not addressed the fact that only Southwest's nonstop destinations are listed, that exclusion is a distinction. If you mean there is no to be no distinction between the nonstops and directs, then please point to a consensus that says so, because the policies do not.  Those examples do show that footnotes are sometimes used (thankfully) in destination lists. But I wouldn't know if they have any bearing on this discussion because I can't tell if direct flights are involved because they aren't denoted. Maybe I'm missing something here, perhaps you can better explain the aversion to using 'via' from a logical or pragmatic perspective, rather than from a non-existent policy or consensus related perspective.  Or, you could point me to a high quality airline article with a 'route network' section for guidance so that cited information can be preserved.Synchronism (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) You still don't get it. My point is that either it's listed or it isn't, and if it is, no distinction is to be made of whether it is nonstop. And that is the long time consensus by many many editors. (2) The Southwest issue is part of the "what kind of directs is worthy to be listed" issue. Editors have agreed that Southwest flight number continuations are either "timetable directs" or otherwise not genuinely direct. Through-hub directs or international gateway continuation are equally "deceptive". On the contrary, NMA's routes are very un-deceptive. I can't see your point of arguing both sides. (3) Guidelines saying "avoid" means "don't...unless you can justify" and I'm asking why you think NMA deserves special mentions. (4) There had been discussions on whether directs should be presented differently from nonstops, but the prevailing opinion was that such distinction is unencyclopedic. (5) Project policies are best discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports. HkCaGu (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) Please provide a link to the interpretation of the guideline that you call consensus. Especially since your further advice is for me to continue the discussion at the WikiProject's talkpage, it would be important for me to know the background. (2)Aside from also needing a proof of the consensus you allude to, encyclopedic work is typically backed by reliable sources and not solely the determination of some group of editors. I'm not arguing both sides, you've suggested a rational alternative, but it is that I write a section that is not given in any Aviation Project guideline. I don't think there's anything deceptive about showing NMA's directs here, nor do I understand why it is at all problematic that direct flights be noted as such. Can you explain that? If a bunch of editor's concluded that it is irrelevant, it would be valuable to me to understand how they came to that decision. (3) Quite simply: they are the only direct destinations listed. Direct flights, especially intrastate public service ones, are interesting.(4) Show me these precedent making discussions. I don't understand how it is unencyclopedic, and disagree with that opinion.(5) If you want me to go write on the project talkpage it is essential that I am familiar with previous discussions.Synchronism (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is beyond my ability (time consumption) to research into the history, as it is longer than my time as an editor. On Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports there is an archive of discussions going back many years. HkCaGu (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So, there is no consensus, or at least there is no ripe consensus, let alone a consensus about this issue reflected in policy. Why is it problematic or unencyclopedic to include 'via' descriptions of direct flights?Synchronism (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * THERE IS A LONG-TIME CONSENSUS!!! It's there! Just go there and dig up whatever you want! Go ask people there! You're costing me too much time in the wrong place! HkCaGu (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't yell at me, I'm a volunteer and I'm trying to help. It's not my job to do your research into why you think that it's inappropriate to denote direct flights from an airport. Why is it problematic or unencyclopedic to include 'via' descriptions of direct flights?Synchronism (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not my job to satisfy your demand (undue burden) on one person when you refuse to go there and just look at what has been discussed over so many years. I'm just here to tell you that most everybody there will agree with me and if you want to challenge the consensus, don't force me to act as the diplomat or liaison.

HkCaGu (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've given it a precursory look and found nothing of great relevance, thus no apparent consensus as I stated above. Can you please just explain why my edit was problematic; why is it problematic or unencyclopedic to include 'via' descriptions of direct flights?Synchronism (talk) 09:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Re "NMA's route structure is best left for the airline's article (in which former destinations are allowed), not the airport" If you look at this guideline you will see that what the instructions state about the routing of flights is that they not be discussed in airline articles; "Only list destinations. Flight schedules or routing should not be included in this section". We are not talking about former destinations we are talking about direct flightsSynchronism (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It says the listing of destinations should not contain frequencies and routing, not that you can't discuss within the whole article. Many airlines have a "route network" section giving an overall analysis of markets served. HkCaGu (talk) 10:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen that before but it sounds rational, could you give me a specific example for guidance?Synchronism (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is the guidelines from WP:AIRPORTS: ''List non-stop and direct flights only. That means the flight number and the aircraft, starts at this airport and continues to one or more airports. Avoid using the description 'via' since that is more correctly listed as another destination. If passengers can not disembark at a stop on a direct flight, then do not list it as a destination or as 'via'. Direct flights are not always non-stop flights. However, avoid listing direct flights that contain a stop at a domestic hub, as virtually all of these are simply flights from one "spoke city" to a hub, with the plane continuing from the hub to a second spoke city. Furthermore, these flights often involve plane changes, despite the direct designation. Including these flights dramatically increases the length of destination listings, artificially inflates the airline's presence at a location and requires constant updating, as these "timetable direct" destinations have little rhyme or reason and may change as often as every week or two. '' 18:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've obviously read that multiple times (and linked to it too) and it doesn't say "don't use'via'" or any variation of that. You can read this too. So please stop citing 'policy' and 'consensus'.  I would be happy to create a 'route network' section for NMA's article, so please don't worry about me adding the 'via' descriptions, but El Paso should be removed as an NMA destination for consistency with the other airlines at the airport whose direct flights are not shown (schedules for the Carlsbad-Hobbs segment are not published).Synchronism (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Without feedback, I will strongly reconsider adding the 'via' descriptions as they do not violate any policies and it improves the article by making the coverage more accurate.Synchronism (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked through all the archives of the Airport Project, to open by speaking of undue burdens. I found quite a few threads about whether to include direct flights at all, but very little about how to mark them. A 2006 thread has several editors claiming that there is no need to differentiate between nonstop and direct, and several claiming that using "via" is straightforward for increasingly rare "truly" direct flights. The Aiport Project's MOS guideline seems to reflect a compromise between the two viewpoints, by generally discouraging "via" for service that doesn't transit a hub. Therefore this is not even covered by the "discourage" clause as these flights do not transit a hub. I have stated why these two direct flights are exceptional, but will repeat for convenience: it doesn't harm the article; they are the only direct destinations listed; the flights are a part of New Mexico's subsidized intrastate scheduled commercial aviation network, the hub of which is this airport located in the state's economic hub, it is thus interesting to see the airport reaches its destinations's geographic domain.

The factual accuracy dispute tag should be removed, and I will do so seen, a lot of articles could be more accurate but no one has alleged that this one is inaccurate.Synchronism 02:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't see why you insist of the "exceptional" nature of these routes. Many routes serving small population centers are like that--multi-stop hopping. Horizon has quite a few in the Paicific Northwest. Alaska in Alaska. United's Los Angeles-Yuma-El Centro. Continental Micronesia's island hopper. And it goes on for many other countries. You find little about marking directs because the spirit of the project is to not mark them. Distinguishing destinations by nonstop-direct has been deemed beyond encyclopedic. The subsidizing of routes belong to airline articles. And I'm just telling you what the practice has been. Challenges to the status quo should not be done here. It belongs to the project. HkCaGu (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it goes against the spirit of the project, I think that's a bit drastic, but I don't even know what you mean by that. The status quo according to the guideline and the status quo according to what you are saying are quite different. I am trying to understand how it's problematic, but I'm  not seeing it, please help me out here.  I can understand why you think it's unexceptional, that's a matter of opinion though mostly, except for the fact that these are the only direct flights on the page, that is a very literal exception.  Yeah, it's true that this discussion could be had on a number of other pages and should just as well be moved to the project page.  But I'm not seeking to alter the current guidelines nor set a precedent, nor go against consensus.  I was just trying to improve this article, and I was and am working within reasonable interpretations of policy to meet that end.  I don't think my edits go against the spirit of any Wikipedia project or the project itself. They certainly don't challenge a never-formed consensus.Synchronism (talk) 04:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To summarize the discussion and "spirit" of why things are or aren't included in airport articles, of each item's encyclopedic value, destinations are there to show what the airport is like, not to tell people where they can or cannot fly to or from. Exact/complete gate counts and gate assignments have been "banned", exact routes and frequencies are not allowed, transit fares are the same. Technical stops where people can't get off are not listed--or maybe with a note or hidden note (telling editors not to add them). Former destinations are not allowed in airports, but OK in airlines. These are just how project participants have agreed what an encyclopedia should carry, and in that spirit, destinations are either listed or not listed, without the nonstop/direct distinction. NMA's route aren't special enough (in terms of routes and destinations) to carry any footnote etc. I can't show you "proof" of every point, but I hope it helps you understand the principles. HkCaGu (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Much of what your talking about is not in dispute, and your explanation for "the way things are" is faulty because you're clinging to this "spirit" notion, as though it's some sort of gut-feeling that allows the select few to arbitrarily "ban" edits that don't sit well with them. This is silly and that attitude violates the collaborative spirit of the project. You could have made the perfectly rational argument that highlighting this info in airport articles may/does not adhere with WP:NOTTRAVEL, that seems to be why such listings are discouraged along with gate assignments. I can understand that argument, though I think there are some other current practices around the encyclopedia that are not so borderline and very much violate WP:nottravel. Explaining to someone that 'we do x this way because that's the way we do x' is tautological, and unhelpful. You should generally know why you are doing a reversion, beyond simply saying that it's what everyone else does. Synchronism (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your refusal to bring the argument to the project level and insisting to discuss on this page only is becoming a harassment of me as an editor. This is my last warning. I'm running out of tolerance. If you want to challenge the project consensus and make a change, go there and do so, not cornering me alone who have no ability, the time or the obligation to tell you why the system was developed. HkCaGu (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You have accused me of making edits which violate the spirit of Wikipedia. You yelled at me. You accused me of wasting your time when you keep coming back here, bringing up unrelated topics, and treating me as if I'm not a project participant. You ask me multiple times "how is this exceptional?" and then express surprise that I have answered you. I haven't refused to allow this to be discussed at the project level, you brought this up on the Airport Project talk page where you wrote of me in unsavory terms, I was (and am) exercising patience and restraint in not replying there, at least until there is more input. This is not your personal talk page, I don't see how me defending my edit from reversion with with what I see as frivolous and arbitrary cause amounts to me harassing you. I'm not challenging the project, but I have tried to understand why you undid my harmless edit, which, although I can see how it might be travel-guide like, certainly was never meant that way; I have no problem with having my edits undone so long as it is for good cause, and not just because you say so. You claimed a consensus that doesn't appear to have ever formed and asked me to read the project archives when I asked you, as is standard practice, for a link to the consensus. I haven't done anything to you personally and now you are making vague threats in my direction. I don't understand your antagonizing attitude towards me at all, nor your desire to compel me to go challenge a non-apparent consensus, when I have no qualm with the written quidelines on the topic.Synchronism (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If I missed that point, let me make that clear: I don't have the ability, time or obligation to explain the HISTORY of the consensus. It is not only in written words of WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT and the associated discussion, it is in every airport article's history. I'm telling you the consensus is there, and I am just representing it--I'm not it. I asked for "exception" because only that justifies the discussion remaining here. If there isn't a valid exception, then the discussion belongs there. HkCaGu (talk) 10:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're not qualified to defend your reversions of someone's WP:Burden compliant edit, then don't make it. I don't understand why are the reasons I gave you invalid, I gave you several but you only responded to one of them. WP:Consensus on a disputed topics like this isn't based on actions, it's based on discussion, of which I have now read many and I told you they don't indicate a consensus (You would know this if you took a spare hour or less to read them selectively looking for threads that mention the words "direct" or "via" using a ctrl-f page search, perhaps you might even find a different perspective).
 * I think you should redact your vague threat and accusation of me harassing you, I think this behavior over a matter so simple is a bit surreal. Synchronism (talk) 11:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Renaming from airport to sunport
The airport is referred to throughout as "Albuquerque International Sunport" or "the Sunport" and the article states that it was originally named Albuquerque Municipal Airport. There is no mention of the change that removed the word *airport* from the name of this airport. Pmocek (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

International?
The destinations list does not list any destinations outside the USA. In what way can this airport claim to be "International"? TiffaF (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Great question, I've had the same myself. The rule in place is 19 CFR § 122.11, which specifies the designation criteria. It generally is not revoked provided the airline continues to comply with the rules, namely to provide facilities to allow processing of international passengers and cargo while following the federal procedures in handling them. I've not seen an example where it's revoked. The CBP staff is still present and processing Global Entry, private/charter cargo/passenger flights, emergency landings, enforcement activities, and the intermittent international service the airport receives. I appreciate that the airport maintains the service even during times that scheduled commercial service is not available. Dolphx (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

There was a brief service to Mexico from 2018-2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.26.166.37 (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Albuquerque International Sunport. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141004064124/http://aspm.faa.gov:80/opsnet/sys/Main.asp?force=atads to https://aspm.faa.gov/opsnet/sys/Main.asp?force=atads

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Largest Commercial Aircraft
The article states that the 737-900 is the largest commercial aircraft that flies from here. However, Boeing 757 aircraft have flown out of here before. Should the article be changed to reflect that?Jak474 (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Albuquerque International Sunport. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://aspm.faa.gov/opsnet/sys/Main.asp?force=atads
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141029200026/http://www.cabq.gov/airport/about-the-sunport/facts-and-figures/facts-and-figures to http://www.cabq.gov/airport/about-the-sunport/facts-and-figures/facts-and-figures

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Update FAA runway diagram
The presented runway diagram dates from 2006, and shows a north-south runway. However, that runway is apparently permanently closed. The current diagram can be found here: https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1902/00012ad.pdf#nameddest=(ABQ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.56.218 (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the north-south runway (17-35) is most assuredly closed. It was shut down in 2012, and in 2017 they started demolition to build a new business air park in it's place. https://abqsunport.com/2017/03/albuquerque-international-sunport-breaks-ground-on-aviation-center-of-excellence-3917/ Dolphx (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Largest Passenger aircraft
I would argue that the VC-25A (as Air Force One) was the largest passenger aircraft to visit - as most recently as 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.26.166.37 (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Why all Mexico City flights have been terminated, including Aeromexico and when there will ever be any of those flights again?
Can you tell me why all Mexico City flights have been terminated, including Aeromexico and when there will ever be any of those flights again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clrichey (talk • contribs) 00:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)