Talk:International Airlines Group

Japanese?
Is there a reason why the name in Japanese is notable for inclusion? It's not headquartered in Japan, nor does a Japanese company have a stake in it. I'd remove it, but I don't feel right doing so unilaterally. I'll wait a couple days, and if nobody has any objections, I'll do so then. --MicahBrwn (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed by another user. Airplaneman   ✈  02:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Differences from a certificated airline
Lets start analyzing this. Why is truth and clarifity so objected to in wikipedia.

International Airlines Group is not an certificated airline

yes or no?

but a multinational "holding" corporation.

yes or no?

This European holding company device differs from the holding company devices on the North American continent

yes or no?

in the sense it simply is a business device to overcome national investment boundaries.

yes or no?

In the United States, such holding company devices were initially used to assist business investment and acquisitions,

yes or no?

but soon after the advent of airline deregulation law signed by President Jimmy Carter,

yes or no?

were manipulated, corrupted and turned into union busting organizations

yes or no?

by the likes of private equity hedge fund capitalists and individuals such as

yes or no?

Frank Lorenzo

yes or no?

at Texas Air Corporation,

yes or no?

and robber baron (industrialist)s Carl Icahn

yes or no?

at Trans World Airlines.

yes or no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.137.22 (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment but they dont appear to be relevant to improving the article, blogs and discussion forums can be found elsewhere. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

- NO not discussing just pointing out facts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.137.22 (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reliable references, please? This is an encyclopedia article; the info (whether correct or not) does not help the article. This is going on an extreme tangent. The fact that IAG is a holding company (not an airline) is already mentioned in the article. Thanks, Airplaneman   ✈  03:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * the following types of business entities lacking Transparency (market) do not like to make references too readily available: Dummy corporation, Shelf corporation, Shell (corporation), and Front organizations available in case editors have not noticed.

Fleets list
I have raised the issue of adding the fleet of subsidaries at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Airlines, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

CEO and Chairman
Normally, the first keyman in a company is the Chairman, so Chairman could be the first in the list and the CEO the second one.

Guttyvic (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Fleet list
I changed the fleet list back to the originally summary but I have been reverted, the IAG has no aircraft and a detailed list is not really needed here. All the individual airlines each have detailed fleet information we have need to repeat or maintain it here. Refer also comment from 2010 when the fleet list was first changed to a summary. Note that IAG is a holding company not an airline. Suggest it is removed and reverted back to a summary. MilborneOne (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion it is highly relevant and useful and should stay (it has been in the article for over a year now). Although some of the information is duplicated in other articles, by no means all of it is, and it is also useful to have it all in one place. Note also that Air France-KLM has a similar table. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes the Air France-KLM needs to go as well it is just a confusing mess, best I take this to project for more opinions. MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This fleet table is a confusing mess too. In the columns listing aircraft operated by each individual airline, it is listed as 3/0, 2/15, etc.  What's that supposed to mean?  3 in service and 0 orders?  This is not very obvious at first glance.  So, I do agree that the fleet table is not really needed.  &mdash;Comp dude 123 23:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether the table presents the information in the best possible format is a separate, irrelevant, issue to whether a table should be included per se. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ummmm, that's not really true. The way the info is presented is an important factor in determining whether the information is needed at all.  &mdash;Comp dude 123 14:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

IMO there is no need for a fleet list here. This is a company that owns some airlines, not an airline. The same goes for Air France - KLM. YSSYguy (talk) 06:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is rather more than a holding company, the activities of Iberia and British Airways are now managed as one, the separate branding and legal structure of the group reflects regulatory requirements as much as anything. And what if the aircraft are actually owned/leased at the group level? Rangoon11 (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * They certainly dont operate each others aircraft as a holding company it is not a licensed airline. Fleet lists are correctly placed in the airline pages. MilborneOne (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, but being licenced as an airline and owning/leasing the aircraft and having management control are separate issues.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes but it has nothing to do with listing the fleet totals of subsidaries which have no encyclopedic value in this article (or any holding company article for that matter). MilborneOne (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But what do the fleet totals mean - ownership or useage at any one point in time? It strikes me as highly useful to readers to have a place where the fleet of IAG - which is by far its largest asset - is detailed. IAG is an independently highly notable topic, and information about its fleet is of great use to understanding that topic properly. I struggle to see how readers will benefit from the removal of this content.
 * If the concern is maintenance of the table, then there are solutions to this such as making the table into a template which can be transcluded in part into the articles of Iberia and British Airways. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The consensus so far is that the lists are not needed in any form. MilborneOne (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be good to actually have a discussion and to hear responses to the valid points which I am making. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait a sec, I thought this was a discussion. &mdash;Comp dude 123 15:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not one in which the points I made above are actually engaged with sadly.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok then, I shall consider your points. I understand that it would make sense to have fleet listings here, but IAG is a holding company and not an airline, so it does not own the aircraft.  Rather, it owns airlines which own aircraft.  Putting the fleet data here gives readers the false impression that IAG is an airline.  Let's not forget that there are people who read Wikipedia!  If you write it, they will read it.
 * As for maintenance of the table if we were to keep it, I don't know if a template would be feasible here. From my experience I have found that new users are the ones who contribute most of the content to Wikipedia.  Let's not make it harder on them with a complicated template.  In fact most of WP's templates (not including navboxes) are really out of my comfort zone when it comes to editing them&mdash;and I've been a wikipedia user for nearly two years.  &mdash;Comp dude 123 16:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with MilborneOne on this one. As IAG are the holding company, there is no need to list the fleet numbers for each airline in the article, they can stay in the individual articles. Cloudbound (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I also agree with MilborneOne on this one. Having a fleet table here is confusing and provides a source of redundancy and yet another table that needs constant maintenance, which is unnecessary. Airplaneman   ✈  16:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with Rangoon11 on this, I have made some changes so that it is now correct for a specific date, but i would include a table to show all the planes which it has under the various subsidiaries. Each year IAG provide a table with all the info, like the one i used as a reference, so maintaining it would be quite easy to do once a year. NBNK1 (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My view remains as before, that the table is very useful for readers interested in the topic of IAG, as the fleet is a very fundamental part of the operations of the business. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And the current consensus is not to include a fleet list as above. MilborneOne (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Royal Air Maroc& Mauritius Air Mauritius stakes
"Morocco Royal Air Maroc (0.95% stake) Mauritius Air Mauritius (2.3% stake)" Could someone confirm this, with a reference 2.123.131.244 (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I now understand that the Royal Air Maroc stake is held by Iberia what about Air Mauritius?2.123.131.244 (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * In the last annual report 2008/09 it says British Airways had sold its shareholding in 2008. Although it is a few years out of date. MilborneOne (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Arrows
Why aren't there those red and green arrows showing financial data?Njaohnt (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

London, England, UK
User 82.32.116.24 and I have recently been reverting each other's edits concerning constructions like "London, England, UK", both here and in other articles. 82.32.116.24 appears to have accepted that London should not be wikilinked (see WP:OVERLINKING). My view is that we can expect our readers to know where London is, and where England is, and that we should not state the obvious. The same applies to Madrid. I favour having simply "London", but would settle on either "London, UK" or "London, England". 82.32.116.24's latest edit has the summary "It was fine for months until May 29th" which is an extremely poor argument. Note that we have "British Airways" in the infobox. I will change the infobox to London and Madrid, but I am happy to discuss this here. This may be a trivial issue, but discussion is preferable to edit warring. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on International Airlines Group. 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://archive.is/20131012182728/http://www.logisticsmanager.com/Articles/Article.aspx?liArticleID=19610 to http://www.logisticsmanager.com/Articles/Article.aspx?liArticleID=19610
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6AZ48HpwI?url=http://www.abtn.co.uk/news/0813985-ba-eyes-madrid-expansion to http://www.abtn.co.uk/news/0813985-ba-eyes-madrid-expansion
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100413002008/http://ca.news.finance.yahoo.com/s/08042010/2/biz-finance-british-airways-iberia-sign-merger-deal-create-world.html to http://ca.news.finance.yahoo.com/s/08042010/2/biz-finance-british-airways-iberia-sign-merger-deal-create-world.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323161316/http://www.sbolsas.com/ing/ficheros/documentos/comiteasesor/AC04-11eng.pdf to http://www.sbolsas.com/ing/ficheros/documentos/comiteasesor/AC04-11eng.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150318225641/http://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2011/september/interbrand-renames-airmiles-avios to http://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2011/september/interbrand-renames-airmiles-avios

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) 21:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)