Talk:Braniff International Airways

Possible Misinformation
In the other facts section, someone mentions that in 2001, Southpark Studios were told not to use Braniff in any other format, and then says this is why it was not included in the South Park movie. All I have to say is that the South Park movie came out in 1999. --Reepnorp 01:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

English in the Braniff article
Observe how this reads: "These debts combined with Braniff's sub-par load factors—which were especially intolerable on the expensive-to-run 747s—to produce massive financial shortfalls."

Take out the phrase enclosed in hyphens, which you should be able to do in any sentence written in English, and this reads: "These debts combined with Braniff's sub-par load factors to produce massive financial shortfalls." This is proper English; to be specific, it's a full infinitive.

With your revision, this would read: "These debts combined with Braniff's sub-par load factors produced massive financial shortfalls." This is not proper English, unless the phrase "with Braniff's sub-par load factors" is enclosed with commas; however, if this is done, the punctuation becomes too busy.

It's perhaps a little fancy, but I like how it reads. DiogenesNY 03:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you reading what you're writing? s/b "...debts (noun) and the "load factors" (noun) produced (verb) shortfalls (direct object); -OR- your original was okay before as "...debts and 'load factors' led to shortfalls". As you said, removing the inserted text between the em dashes makes it easier to construct (and copy edit) Clipper471 04:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As I noted, you're adding an "and" to the sentence that's not in the sentence as written. "To produce" is being used as a full infinitive following the verb "combined".  Your revision makes sense if I had used "and", but I didn't.  My sentence effectively reads "These debts combined to produce"; your sentence effectively reads, "These debts combined produced".  Look again, Mr. Copy Editor. DiogenesNY 04:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahhh! I was reading it as "the debts /combined with the sub-par load factors/ to produce...", not that the debts actually combined. Perhaps commas would be a good idea. But how do debts "combine"? Clipper471 04:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The debts are Factor 1, the sub-par load factors are Factor 2; combined, they lead to the result. As in, "The sunny day combined with the warm temperatures to produce ideal weather for golf." DiogenesNY 04:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Your original "these debts combined /with the sub-par load factors/ led to ... shortfalls" is better. Clipper471 04:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay as is. Seeing it more clearly now. The text that's set off seems to break the flow more than I'm comfortable with since it's so long. Clipper471 04:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh well...I suppose I'll never win the Pulitzer Prize. 8) DiogenesNY 05:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Splits
these are different legal companies -- related, and should have their own articles —Cliffb 05:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

South Park
Why does South Park show a Braniff logo after the end credits? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.66.193 (talk) 06:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Yes good question, I was wondering as well... does anyone know? Gryffindor  12:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If the two of you would care to READ the article to which you have attached your discussion questions, then you would know. 75.75.91.240 23:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, since the words "television" or "TV" never appear anywhere in the article, and there is no indication anywhere in the article that the company shifted from being an airline to a television production company at any point, reading the article as this anonymous user suggests does not help understanding at all. Let's try again:
 * Does anyone know why there is a Braniff logo after the end credits on South Park? (does it appear on any other shows?) LordAmeth (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is that?

Fair use rationale for Image:Braniff Logo.JPG
Image:Braniff Logo.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 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) 18:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

end of operation
If i recall correctly, the termination of operations in 1982 was extremely abrupt to the clientèle, leaving travelers stranded at airports with their connecting flights cancelled, "out of the blue". Very unelegant. So if this is of possible interest, one would have to conduct some research to find some reliable sources to quote here. --Jerome Potts (talk) 08:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Destinations for a Dead Airline?
Are we really adding a list of destinations for an airline that has been out of service for decades? --AdamRoach (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not? Notability is timeless. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hang on, let me check... yep. :) McA (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Troy Post article needed -
Why is there no wiki article on Troy Post? He was a notable entrepreneur and philanthropist - not to mention a major figure in post WW2 Texas business and finance. I invite Texas readers to get busy on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justwanderinby (talk • contribs) 05:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

And Texas readers did get busy. Troy Victor PostMmb777e (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I've just discovered the new Troy Post article - very good, by the way. It just goes to show you that the Wikipedia community listens and responds! Readers may also be interested in a good article on him in Fortune magazine (mid-60s - sorry, don't know the date).

Copy edits by IP
The recent edits made to the article by IP editors substantially improved the article in terms of making it neutral and concise. Language like "also dedicated a state-of-the-art mid century themed" is hardly the kind of language we aim to use in articles. I have replaced the changes. SmartSE (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The issue with these extensive otherwise unexplained deletions made by a single unidentified user employing at least four anon IPs goes far beyond stylistic differences, but that they also removed relevant sourced information, detail and context which materially weakens the article. These problems will be addressed shortly by Mmb777e, a major contributor to it who is both a commercial airline pilot and has forty years experience in studying the history of Braniff. He is doubtless the best qualified WP contributor to undertake that task, and as such his judgement and edits should be given very considerable defference by the rest of the community. Centpacrr (talk) 02:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Unlikely he's going to "address" the "problems"-- that would be hard to do. Which may be why he hasn't tried to do it yet.


 * His errors of fact are minor, but his refusal to recognize them shows how little thought is going into his reversions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.133.26 (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I note with interest, sir or madam, that you have still not explained any of the deletions of detail, context and citations that you have made to this (and other) articles using at least four anon IPs, but also did not even bother to sign your comment above. The Braniff expert editor who will address them is currently busy preparing for the Braniff History and Architecture Conference to be held next week at the carrier's former world headquarters complex at D/FW Airport in Dallas being sponsored by the Braniff Preservation Group, an organization of which he is the founder and President, so he may not be have the time to restore whatever context, detail, and source information that has been removed until after that. Centpacrr (talk) 22:56, September 7, 2014 (UTC)


 * Subsequent note to above: I see that Mmb777e had already changed the material back to the long standing original text before I posted my comment above and did so with the edit note that "This has been reverted back to the original content. This version [the deletions] changed the meanings of nearly every paragraph that a change was made." Based on the demonstrated expertise of this editor, they (and his judgement) should be accorded very considerable defference and left in place. If any other editors still disagree with the restorations to original text, the appropriate procedure is for them to make their case(s) in here first and allow the community to reach consensus on whatever argument they wish to make. Centpacrr (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Where was the demonstration of his expertise?

"you have still not explained..."

So far each of us has done the same amount of explaining; now's your chance to lead by example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.161.85.102 (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The demonstration of Mmb777e's expertise and background is available for anyone to see on his user page. Editing anonymously by a single individual using four different IPs and without explaining the basis for any of the deletions, on the other hand, demonstrates nothing to justify the value of those changes. Centpacrr (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Braniff International Airways. 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/20130120192304/http://www.dallashistory.org/history/dallas/braniff_family.htm to http://www.dallashistory.org/history/dallas/braniff_family.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150509041732/http://routemapsonline.com/ to http://routemapsonline.com/

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) 00:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Braniff International Airways. 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/20050331003822/http://braniffinternational.com/ to http://www.braniffinternational.com/

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) 19:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

History of Braniff International Airways
 Support split - History section should be split. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 *  Comment - The new article should be entitled History of Braniff International Airways. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 *  Comment most of the article is "History" so moving that to another article would not leave much, probably better to move the accidents and incidents to make the article smaller. MilborneOne (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, a small summary of the history can be left in place. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, as long as it is coherent and discusses the major points in the history which can be expanded in the sub-article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, it would be easier to paraphrase an internet site that briefly describes the history, but if you insist, I will trim the sections down one by one like I have started to do. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

❌ I'm removing the split tag from the article. The article is smaller than the recommended max size and hasn't grown much in 2½ years (not surprising since the company is a few decades defunct). No need for the split tag. Platonk (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Halston Braniff Flight Attendant Uniform.jpg