Talk:Avianca Costa Rica

Disagreement on name change
This is to protest the improper name changed which it is of such importance that should have been consulted before doing it. First, all articles in other languages refers to the airline as LACSA, second, the aviation code is still LR, so legally it is still LACSA, TACA is a fantasy name only, and third, even if this was a formal legal change (which has to be proof with RS to be so), still the Lacsa article has to be separated from historical reasons, just as Pan American World Airways exists in Wikipedia. Therefore I am requesting an administrator the reversal (move) of this name change until further discussion here reaches consensus otherwise.-Mariordo (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if the code is still LR doesn't mean its Lacsa, NWA still use NW when really they are operated by Delta. As far as I'm aware when TACA took over it remained as Lacsa but since new livery was introduced the airline was rebranded as TACA Costa Rica. Zaps93 (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Companies might use the fantasy names they want. The question is, does LACSA still legally exits? If its aircraft still use the LR code and are registered in Costa Rica as such, then the article the way it was before you changed was OK. It would be your original research to change the name if LACSA still legally exists. Please provide reliable sources, other than the TACA site to proof your point, otherwise it is your OR.-Mariordo (talk) 11:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Or else what? Threatening sir is not a way forward. Lacsa has since been disposed of... No website, no livery, no flights... It uses the code LR because it's still an independent airline but cannot use the TACA code as it is already being used by TACA, aswell as it costing money to change the code. Lacsa has been disposed of in favour of TACA Costa Rica, go research and you'll see. Zaps93 (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you new in Wikipedia? OR means Original Research, see WP:OR, and RS Reliable Sources, see WP:RS.-Mariordo (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No I'm not new... Maybe if you were more clearer! Zaps93 (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Back to the discussion, you edit TACA Costa Rica is flagrant WP:OR, a Google search in English and Spanish shows only ONE entry for such name, the one here at English Wikipedia. Also, you did not produce any WP:RS supporting your name change. Since I requested from the beginning a RS and you ignore it, I will now request an Administrator to reverse the change you did back to LACSA. The research I did shows that a more appropriate renaming would be TACA/LACSA, used at least in English, Spanish, and Portuguese. However, following proper wiki policies, I will open a discussion to such change before doing any redirect.-Mariordo (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The article content needs to be updated and referenced with RSs.  After the research I did my conclusion is that the LACSA article content must be limited until it joined TACA (circa 1987) and stop using its own logo (though the LR code is still used today), that happened circa 1998. Therefore, all content in the LACSA article must refer exclusively to operations until that time, ending with the fact that there are still aircrafts using (and painted) the TACA logo operating LACSA licensed routes by Costa Rican aviation authorities, and using its LR code as these jetplanes were flagged in Costa Rica (that is all that is left of Lacsa, there is no separate administration any longer). Thereafter, the existing TACA article already presents the evolution and current state of the associated airlines (there are four others besides Lacsa), and there is no need to have a LACSA/TACA article or TACA Costa Rica. Obviously these changes will have to be supported by RS. In a nutshell, the LACSA article must look like similar to the Pan American World Airways. And finally, because of the OR nature of the name change and the factual inaccuracy of the TACA Costa Rica name, I think that a reversal is justified, immediately followed by a discussion of the article content, proper name, etc. After consulting with an adminin, and because there has  been no consensus, I am tagging the article requesting sources, particularly regarding the new name introduced all over the article by Zaps93. Until the article is improved at least the readers might be aware of the lack of RS supporting the content as it is today.-Mariordo (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As another editor reverse the name back to LACSA, I did some editing with some references but still reliable sources are lacking, and based on a Google search, included also the TACA/Lacsa name. There is much work to do to improve this article. I think TACA's share has increased from the original 10% but I could not find any reference about the current shareholders of LACSA. Please feel free to collaborate.-Mariordo (talk) 03:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Finally I found a RS regarding TACA Costa Rica. It was registered in Costa Rica in 2006 with an exploration license set to expire in 2011. Lacsa's exploration license was issue in 2009! and expires in 2014. TACA Costa Rica operates different routes from Lacsa. The TACA Costa Rica routes are 1) San José, Costa Rica – Santo Domingo, Republica Dominicana – San José, Costa Rica; 2) San José, Costa Rica – San Juan, Puerto Rico – San José, Costa Rica; 3) San José, Costa Rica – Santo Domingo, Republica Dominicana - San Juan, Puerto Rico – San José, Costa Rica; and 4) San José, Costa Rica – Panamá. With the exception of the latter, all of these are new routes not flight by Lacsa. See here, this is the official list of airlines authorized to flight in Costa Rica, issued by the Direccion General de Avicion Civil de Costa Rica, the government agency in charge of aviation. Although it is in Spanish, some of info can be understood fairly easily (dates, routes, etc). It seems to me that the official reference proves these are to different legal entities, though they relationship is not clear, as well as the legal relationship with TACA. Is TACA Costa Rica owned by Grupo TACA or is it a subsidiary of LACSA, which is controlled by TACA? I google but could not find anything, neither in English or Spanish. I will wait for some comments before making any further edits because I think more research is required to decide if the Lacsa article content must be limited to 1989 or 1998, or shall we create a new article on TACA Costa Rica, as I do not think we should mix the new TACA Costa Rica with the almost extinct (but not defunct) Lacsa. The TACA site is not very helpful. It's ICAO code is TAT, belonging to GRUPO TACA  while LRC corrresponds to Lacsa, with its LR from IATA (note that Lacsa is not listed as defunct).-Mariordo (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The name of the Airline is LACSA
I agree with Mariordo about this flagrant and equivocated change of name. I am Costa Rican and I have never heard the name TACA Costa Rica before. The agreement in between the companies TACA (which is a Salvadoran company) and LACSA was that the airline will flight under the name TACA, but they will preserve the name code and the flagship LACSA. And Grupo TACA has commited to give their own hub to LACSA, which is SJO Airport. In this sense, the case of LACSA is not the same as the rest of Central American Airlines absorbed by TACA. And the three hubs of Grupo TACA are San Salvador (operated by TACA), San Jose (operated by LACSA) and Lima (operated by TACA Peru). --JorgeRodriguez (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

ERROR
"All international services are operated by Grupo TACA since 1989".

I remember traveling in LACSA-branded planes sometime until the 90's. Reference one states that :

"Developing a strategic alliance with the flag airlines of Guatemala (AVIATECA), Costa Rica (LACSA), and Nicaragua (NICA), TACA consolidated operations between 1989 and 1995 under the name of GRUPO TACA, thereby transforming the company into one of the most efficient transportation systems in Latin America."

The other 2 references don't say anything about the last flight. Lacsa was probably one of the last ones, till 1995 +/- but certainly not 1989. I am removing that date until someone gives a real one. Daniel32708 (talk) 04:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)