Talk:Continental Airlines Flight 1404

Other plane
I don't think that the picture of the other Continental 737-500 should be on this page, as the plane involved in the incident has winglets, and the one in the example doesnt. 98.196.223.225 (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No citation, no fact
Everything I can see says that the captain is still in the hospital and hasn't been interviewed; I see no way that anyone could know exactly what decision he made at this point. I'm removing this speculation until it can be properly cited like everything else in the article.Gameforge (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Already changed; thx. // Gameforge (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Writeoff
A reliable source site, Aviation Safety Network, says specifically that the aircraft will be written off/was damaged beyond repair, and cites the NTSB and Continental as a source. This is further supported by pictures of the aircraft, clearly being in multiple pieces. Until Continental and Boeing miraculously announce that they will spend billions to re-establish the pieces of this aircraft as one airworthy plane again, I believe that, given the source, we can safely say it has been written off. // Gameforge (talk) 05:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyone can get info about the aircraft by doing an N-Number Inquiry on the FAA website. What I'm saying is that it is impossible to write off an aircraft in 24 hours because they will have to go through many steps to write it off. Looking at the FAA Registry, the aircraft was owned by Wells Fargo so that ads another company to the party that will needs to send their people to inspect the plane. The aircraft is not worthless because much of it is still there, parts can be pulled off of it and other parts sold as scrap. So it will take some time to assess how much the plane is worth in its current condition, how much it was worth before the crash and then who has to pay who before it is considered a write off.


 * Wikipedia is not about assuming things...things written on Wikipedia are supposed to be official. While I do believe that this aircraft will be a write off...It is not official yet and should not be written that way on Wikipedia until it is official. Spikydan1 (talk) 06:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay... so where do we look to see that it's official? Again - it is not an assumption when there is a credible source citing the NTSB and Continental about this information.  I realize that a large amount of people need to assess the damage and determine exact values, but I don't see why they can't determine with certainty and in a short amount of time when in fact a plane has been totaled.  Further (my main point), the Aviation Safety Network is a reliable source, which is citing primary/first-hand sources.  Should their information change, the article can be updated - until then it's cited information.Gameforge (talk) 06:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe I am missing something, but where does ASN list their sources for the info? At the bottom of the page it just says "It is preliminary and is based on the facts as they are known at this time". ASN does not even have Contiential's name right on that page.


 * The reason why they need to figure out everything before they make the aircraft a write off is because Wells Fargo and Contiential are public companies (I don't know who is the insurance company is but I assume they are public also). All of the companies would need to declare that loss to their stockholders because it most likely be a loss of millions of dollars...Before they tell the stockholders about the loss they have to come up with an amount that they lost (or gained) from the crash and write it down in their books for the stockholders. CO will likey post something here: http://www.continental.com/web/en-US/content/company/investor/default.aspx If not, they will have to say something at their 4th quater earnings on Jan 29 because this happend in the 4th Q. Spikydan1 (talk) 06:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Look at the bottom of the page, underneath the weather: it says Sources in bold and has a bulleted list underneath listing Continental Airlines and NTSB. While I understand that they need to go through these pragmatic processes with their shareholders, I don't see why the determination could not have already (quite easily) been made that the aircraft is damaged beyond repair, thus (for a fact) forcing the company to write it off.  Exact values do not need to be calculated for this conclusion to be drawn.  To give an example, if your moderately old car (this aircraft was 14 years old) is in an accident and is damaged so badly that it was split in half, it is essentially inconceivable that it would be worth the cost of repairing it.  Please note that I'm not trying to relate auto value to aircraft value... perhaps some aircraft frame somewhere could be split in half and dragged on its belly and dropped into a 40 ft ravine without being damaged beyond its value... I'm merely saying that it's not inconceivable that they could know so this soon after the accident - and therefore see no reason to challenge the credibility of ASN. // Gameforge (talk) 07:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * ASN does not list what those sources besides saying "NTSB" and "Continental". I am not arguing that the aircraft is not a write off, I think that plane will be written off but it is a matter of time until it is. The three compnaies that hold stakes in the aircraft all have to meet and argree that the plane is a write off (They could all think seperatly right now that the aircraft is a write off but they have to meet to officially make it a write off for the sake of their owners...the stockholders...If you don't like that long and annoying system then don't buy any stocks.) I'm done arguing about this, if you want to keep listing unoffical information of Wikipedia then go right ahead. Spikydan1 (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A writeoff can refer specifically to a vehicle which has been determined cheaper to replace than to repair, and is commonly used to do so with aircraft. The plane is totaled - absolutely nothing whatsoever indicates that the plane is even physically capable of being repaired.  I realize that the accountants haven't written it off of their books yet, but I can't do much about the fact that "writeoff" is an ambiguous term which can mean any of several things.  I think it's fairly obvious what it means in this case - the aircraft is totaled.  They cannot repair it for less than the cost to replace it.  It's totaled - as in total write-off. // Gameforge (talk) 07:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Number of Passengers?
Out of the 9 sources currently mentioned, 6 say that there were 110 passengers on the plane, 1 says that there were 112, but two (including the official Continental Web site) mention that there were 107. Who do we believe? I think Continental, and that we should change the infobox to reflect its count of 107. Opinions? Mononomic (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * reply - I'll go ahead and re-cite the page with the updated news release from Continental, which says 110 customers were on board: http://www.continental.com/web/en-US/apps/vendors/default.aspx?i=http%3A%2F%2Fphx.corporate-ir.net%2Fphoenix.zhtml%3Fc%3D85779%26p%3Dirol-newsArticle%26ID%3D1238241 ... it looks like early reports said 107, but everything more recent says 110.Gameforge (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Thanks! Mononomic (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * followup - In case anyone's interested, it looks as though the confusion was due to two off-duty Continental employees and one former Continental employee being on board the flight; Continental may have initially announced 107 customers, for some reason discounting the three that were affiliated (perhaps because they were flying for free). Not sure where the 112 came from though, except that 107 + 5 = 112... Gameforge (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources modified on Continental Airlines Flight 1404
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just attempted to maintain the sources on Continental Airlines Flight 1404. I managed to add archive links to 3 3 sources, out of the total 3 I modified, whiling tagging 0 as dead.

Please take a moment to review my changes to verify that the change is accurate and correct. If it isn't, please modify it accordingly and if necessary tag that source with to keep Cyberbot from modifying it any further. Alternatively, you can also add  to keep me off the page's sources altogether. Let other users know that you have reviewed my edit by leaving a comment on this post.

Below, I have included a list of modifications I've made:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120218163752/http://www.continental.com/web/en-US/apps/vendors/default.aspx?i=http:%2F%2Fphx.corporate-ir.net%2Fphoenix.zhtml%3Fc=85779&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1238241 to http://www.continental.com/web/en-US/apps/vendors/default.aspx?i=http%3A%2F%2Fphx.corporate-ir.net%2Fphoenix.zhtml%3Fc%3D85779%26p%3Dirol-newsArticle%26ID%3D1238241
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090130030301/http://www.latimes.com:80/news/printedition/asection/la-na-denver-airport-accident21-2008dec21,0,1151879.story to http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-denver-airport-accident21-2008dec21,0,1151879.story
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120218163608/http://www.continental.com/web/en-US/apps/vendors/default.aspx?i=http:%2F%2Fphx.corporate-ir.net%2Fphoenix.zhtml%3Fc=85779&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1238236 to http://www.continental.com/web/en-US/apps/vendors/default.aspx?i=http%3A%2F%2Fphx.corporate-ir.net%2Fphoenix.zhtml%3Fc%3D85779%26p%3Dirol-newsArticle%26ID%3D1238236

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Continental Airlines Flight 1404. 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 tag to http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=106332&catid=339
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101219120137/http://www.aetc.af.mil:80/news/story.asp?id=123234560 to http://www.aetc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123234560

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) 05:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Continental Airlines Flight 1404. 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 http://www.aetc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123234560
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120224134227/http://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/20081221167017/wire/world-news/passengers-flee-burning-jet-in-denver-investigation-underway.html to http://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/20081221167017/wire/world-news/passengers-flee-burning-jet-in-denver-investigation-underway.html

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) 15:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Not quite what the pilot said
Section 2 “Investigation”, para 5, sentence 3 is missing a verb: “He also stated that he stopped pushing on rudder controls because they had working.[22]”. But since I have not seen the cited resource, I cannot say whether the intent is “… they had stopped working”, “… they had not been working sufficiently”, “… they were no longer working properly”. Alex Ibay states in his take on this that the pilot “believed that the rudder was not responding”, but I don’t know if that is a sufficient source for Wikipedia. Sbauman (talk) 03:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)