Talk:John F. Kennedy International Airport/Archive 2

Air India to Mumbai
It seems to be difficult as whether or not Mumbai should be added as an Air India destination from New York. AI flew JFK-BOM nonstop until 2010, and now offers a same-number (AI 102) service JFK-DEL-BOM via Delhi. However, according to FlightRadar24.com, there are occasionally plane changes at Delhi from 777-300ER to another 777-300ER or even the occasional 747 or 777-200. Should Mumbai be kept as a destination as the physical plane used from JFK sometimes does not continue to Mumbai?

For example, SQ 25 JFK-FRA-SIN must be on the same plane as SQ does not have any other aircraft available at FRA. AI has tons of aircraft at Delhi as that is their hub, so subs are quite frequent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallacevio (talk • contribs) 01:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not that big issue as you are making it. AI 102 (JFK-DEL-BOM)/ AI 101 (BOM-DEL-JFK) is a daily direct flight. You are simply pointing to a random source and misinterpreting that source. This source suggested by you makes it clear that the daily flight AI 102 at minimum flies in same aircraft every third day and at maximum can fly in same aircraft on consecutive days also. Correspondingly, it can be said that this flight either don't change aircraft or if it does, it does that on third day; but it never change aircraft on consecutive day basis. Please analyse your source carefully. This is quite common with daily direct flights. Is this a reason for expressing doubt regarding mentioning a direct flight destination on an article ? Well, you not only expressed doubt but removed the concerned destination beforehand without any consensus or discussion.


 * And since you have started this discussion, it's upto you to establish consensus before removing Mumbai from destinations. Nevertheless, the fact as per your suggested source remains that at minimum, the concerned flight flies in same aircraft every third day. By every third day, I mean every third day. At maximum (if not every third day), it flies in same airplane in consecutive days also. Check the source. We have so many mono-weekly, bi-weekly, tri-weekly and so on kind of direct flights. Will you suggest to remove them just because they do not fly daily ? You are simply making an issue out of a useless thing. Vibhss (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delhi is not the only hub of Air India. Air India maintains primary hub at Delhi and a secondary hub at Mumbai. Till now (see the previous message), my explanation was factual. Coming to the logical side, just an argument (even though we have much more than this argument) that the given direct flight (here, it is a daily direct flight) operates in same aircraft in entire journey on "most of the days of its operation" is enough to support the inclusion of the destination of that flight in the concerned airport article. Collecting all these facts together, your naive assumption, "there seems to be disagreement on whether or not BOM should be added" seems to be restricted to you only. Knowing that AI 102 mostly operates in same aircraft throughout its journey, why do you still disagree in including BOM ? Does the daily flight to BOM need to fly in same aircraft on all seven days of week (if not on most days) so that BOM could be included ? Considering your views and confusions, you should have established consensus on whether it could be removed or not instead of your removing it first and then asking other users to establish consensus for including it again. Though there is no necessity of continuing this discussion, still I'll try to engage more editors in this discussion to seek more opinions. Vibhss (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Plain and simple none of this is important and it is clear that this flight does not qualify for inclusion under the through hub rule and the same plane rule.  Such detail is not what Wikipedia is for and also fails WP:OR. And by the way it is up to you as the person introducing the information to gain the consensus that this is valid - and I'm suspecting there is no such consensus. Andrewgprout (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Plain & simple. Mostly, this flight do not change aircraft. It is changing aircraft occasionally either on third day (mostly) or on fourth day (rarely) but never on second or consecutive day. The only source due to which this discussion cum debate started proves it. What about the other days when it flies in same aircraft ? This flight operates daily. It is direct same aircraft flight either on every third day (mostly) or on every second day (rarely) but never on fourth day. How does WP:OR applies here ? That it is a "same aircraft" flight on every third day or on every second day is being "interpreted" from source in the same manner as the flight being "different aircraft" on every third day or every fourth day is being "interpreted". How is former original research and latter not ? The source does not explicitly mentions whether the flight is changing plane or not. It's upto the observer to "interpret" correctly by seeing the type of aircraft and then generalize. Is this original research ? Vibhss (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I was invited by to comment here. I think one key point here is WP:OR. I'd not use Flightradar as a source. What I would do is to look at the airline's timetable. I did this, and requested the system to show direct flights only. The timetable shows AI102 as a direct flight, with a stopover of 2 hours and 10 minutes at DEL. This warrants inclusion.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 22:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm interpreting bullet #7 as the inclusion of through hub direct services should be avoided, regardless of plane changes or not. Garretka (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a direct flight with one stop.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Mumbai is the secondary hub of Air India (primary hub being Delhi). Mumbai is not a "spoke-city" as bullet #7 says. The particular content you are referring to in bullet#7 applies on direct flights starting from spoke-city and having layover at domestic hub. And of course, what guarantees the accuracy/ correctness of flightradar.com. It is one of those many websites giving flight and airline information. Thanks . Vibhss (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand that it's a direct flight with one stop. My point was whether or not Mumbai is considered a hub. What exactly is the differentiator between a primary and secondary hub, as is the case here? Garretka (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, you can see difference between primary and secondary hub here. Due to capacity constraints at primary hub, an airline forms forms a secondary hub. Both these are placed together and whether they are primary or secondary, they are hubs. Since bullet #7 refers to only "domestic hub", this surely incorporates both primary and secondary hubs. Since this is a flight from secondary domestic hub - primary domestic hub - foreign city, the particular bullet#7 content can't apply here. And then, regarding aircraft change. Is flightradar.com a reliable and dependable source ? Are we going to maintain Airlines Tables as per this source ? The Air India Time Table clearly mentions the given flight as a direct flight with same type of aircraft. Vibhss (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, they are both hubs, so bullet #7 should and would apply. I do have an issue with the way that particular bullet is worded, but that's a different discussion. Regarding sources, airline timetables tend to be the most accurate source of information. I'm not a fan of flight tracking websites as sources. Garretka (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, when I said, "the particular bullet#7 content can't apply here", I meant to the content prohibiting inclusion of direct flights from "spoke-cities" through domestic hubs. Of course, the rest of the content is applicable. But you can't compare a secondary hub with a "spoke-city". Anyways, you agree that airline timetables tend to be the most accurate source of information. Right ? Vibhss (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you're misunderstanding my point. The flight goes from hub to hub to spoke, which I would consider to be a through hub direct service, which is what bullet 7 is all about. Yes I have always been an advocate for airline timetables being used as they are the most accurate, and I do understand they are listed as direct in this case. We just need to be mindful that through hub direct flights should not be listed. Garretka (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not misunderstanding you. The bullet#7 mentions "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." But here in case of this flight, it starts from a domestic hub, have a layover at another domestic hub and then flies to first spoke-city. So, this flight is not only through hub but it is from hub and through hub. It has to be included definitely. And bullet #10 mentions clearly that the Airline's published Timetable is the implicit source for current destinations. Unless a particular destination is not mentioned in timetable, there is no need for an explicit source. And since Air India Time Table mentions BOM-DEL-JFK/ JFK-DEL-BOM flight in direct flights, Mumbai should be definitely included. Flightradar.com is non-verifiable and unreliable. How can it be used in place of published timetable of Air India ? Vibhss (talk) 09:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand where you're coming from - but you're fixating on words. Perhaps through hub direct isn't the best describer - timetable direct is a better word. Timetable directs, it does contain a stop at a hub, should not be included. I feel it doesn't matter that it doesn't originate at a spoke or a hub as long as it stops at a hub. This is the issue I have with the wording of that bullet. Again, be mindful of timetable direct flights. Virtually all airlines in North America have timetable direct flights that are not listed, what's the special occasion with this one? Garretka (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I still disagree with you. A flight travelling from a spoke-city to a domestic hub to another spoke-city (in foreign country) is different from a flight travelling from a domestic hub to another domestic hub to a foreign spoke-city. Maybe, there should be a discussion on this topic elsewhere, perhaps at WT: AIRLINES. This discussion was started here by a user referring to a random flight tracking website documenting occasional change in aircraft by the concerned direct flight. Vibhss (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you think ? Do you think Mumbai should be included now ? Though bullet #10 and Air India Time Table are agreeing with each other, the particular content of bullet #7 appears to be unclear. Can you throw light on this ? Vibhss (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

BOM warrants an inclusion as it is a direct flight with one stop. , your argument is invalid. bullet #7 is for connecting flights which are through hubs obviously. All direct flights irrespective of the number of stops are listed in every airport, so BOM should be listed as an AI destination. &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 15:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * How does bullet #7 not apply? It's a flight through a 'hub', with the same flight number. Direct flights through hubs are not included, for the reasons explained. Figuring out if it's same aircraft is more often than not WP:OR. Also, incorrect irrespective of stops. If that stop is a hub, the first city is not listed. I'm indifferent to whether it be included or not, I'm just bringing a logical defence to the table. Garretka (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As explained before, Mumbai is a secondary hub of Air India. When a direct flight starts from a hub and makes a layover at another hub, how can that particular content of bullet#7 apply here which refers to flights from one "spoke city" to a hub, with the plane continuing from the hub to a "second spoke city" ? I am not fixating with words as you said. According to bullet #7, both non-stop and direct flights must be included. However, some direct flights (as explained before) must not be included. There is a reason why an airline has declared two airports as hubs. Whether they are primary or secondary, the meaning of hub remains same for both and both are different from Focus city. Therefore, neither virtually nor actually, Mumbai acts as a spoke city. To understand "Spoke–hub distribution paradigm", you can have this example (just a hypothetical example which correctly indicates meaning of spoke and hub):
 * Airline hub-1995.svg
 * As you can see this image, Los Angeles and Denver are acting as hubs. Both the hubs are interconnected. Similar thing goes with Delhi and Mumbai. Vibhss (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for joining this discussion. Though I don't know why a discussion is going on regarding an obvious direct flight which has been included in this article right from its commencement. As you can see, a user started this discussion citing a random flight tracking website (whose validity and accuracy is questionable). On the other hand, as I already said, bullet #10 mentions to use airline's published timetable as implicit source for current destinations. (Garretka), if you disagree regarding Timetable directs, then please ask those who made these rules instead of questioning me. The issue over which this discussion is going on (a random flight tracking website mentioning "occasional aircraft changes on 3rd day or 4th day but never on 2nd or consecutive day") seems to be pretty trivial. What guarantees accuracy of this site ? It's content is also somewhat confusing for general readers to understand. Can this discussion be resolved faster ? Vibhss (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sounding like a broken record. Mumbai is a hub. I, nor the reader, care if it is a primary or secondary hub. A hub is a hub. It is a stop. Regardless of flight number. It should not be included as per the points I've made. I've stated my opinion on this matter, and frankly you saying the same thing over again is not progressing this discussion any further. Timetable directs are strictly against bullet #7. I agree flight tracking websites are not reliable sources, but the inclusion of this is where I'm recommending people take a second look. Garretka (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you don't care to read full meaning of bullet #7 (not "interpreted" by me but conveyed by that bullet itself) that I explained again and again, then it's your folly. And why do you claim that all Timetable directs are against bullet #7 ? Only those (yet again I am telling) travelling from one spoke city to another spoke city through a domestic hub are not to be included. That is what bullet #7 says. A hub (Mumbai here) certainly don't equals a spoke-city. Please read complete bullet #7 again. And your claims don't reflect anything of bullet #7 but indeed contradict bullet #10. Vibhss (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You're really picking at words. How is this case any different? It's travelling from a city to a city via a hub. Quite frankly I don't see the difference but, as you were. Garretka (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the difference is in the involvement of two hubs and one spoke city. While bullet #7 explicitly states to avoid listing direct flights "from one spoke-city to a hub to second spoke-city". Read it. And again, as I showed you in the above diagram, a hub certainly doesn't equal to a spoke-city in any case (virtual or actual). If it did, this would rule out and ignore the existence of starting point (Mumbai) as hub (of Air India). Thus, only New York is the spoke-city here. And it were you, who said you wouldn't care if it is primary or secondary hub and would consider it only hub. Then how can you undermine one of the hubs as a spoke-city ? Vibhss (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't edit much on Wikipedia. But I just happened to come across this page. A question is suddenly being raised by a user regarding a current direct flight destination which has been mentioned in this article for very long time. The user cites one among the lot of flight tracking sites.
 * Mostly, flight tracking sites don't agree with each other. If you can point to a FlightRadar24.com source mentioning "occasional" change in aircraft by the particular direct flight, I also have this source (also a flight tracking site) which clearly mentions that both legs of AI 102 direct flight are completed in same aircraft. Check this source (mentioning aircraft type for both legs as Boeing 777-300ER) and this source also. (not mentioning aircraft type at all). I can mention a dozen of such sites. The reliability of all such sites (including your flightradar24.com) is questionable and such sites can't be used as sources. As rightly explained by Vibhss, bulletin #10 insists on using the published timetables by airlines as sources for current destinations. And Air India Time Table exactly mentions AI102 as direct flight with same type of aircraft. This warrants Mumbai's inclusion in the table. Digangana (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Wonderful ! I was busy in explaining to some users that "through hub" content of bulletin #7 can't apply here. I should have instead mentioned the above so-called sources to enlighten the initiator of this discussion. Anyways, it can be resolved soon. Vibhss (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any other scope left for this discussion. Since it started because of a flight tracking site mentioning "occasional change" of aircraft by this flight and now that other flight tracking sites conflicting with the latter are being highlighted, the fact that all these sites (incl. the first) have questionable reliability is established. Better we go as per Air India's timetable which mentions AI 101/102 as a direct flight with same type of aircraft and that definitely warrants inclusion of BOM. Digangana (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay! I am including back BOM. There is really nothing left to be discussed. Thanks Digangana. Vibhss (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

NO tracking sites are not WP:RS and even if they were they are WP:PRIMARY and should be used with caution. Overall this particular detail is totally unimportant to an encyclopaedia and probably should not be included. There is considerable danger in being overly pedantic with details such as this - the further you go down the pedantic track the. Closer to WP:NOTTRAVEL such details become. Just saying. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Vibhss (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Since 24 July, AI102 DEL-BOM and AI101 BOM-DEL has been scheduled on 77L. In https://flightaware.com/live/flight/AIC102, future upcoming flights also put DEL-BOM-DEL as 77L. The source in the article is outdated, does not includes such routes like IAD-DEL. Would it be wise to remove BOM from the destinations list then? --24.115.196.200 (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC at WT:AIRPORTS
Hello, your input would be appreciated at this RfC about how we should give references for the "Airlines and destinations" tables of articles about airports. Thank you. — Sunnya343&#9992; (háblame • my work) 11:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents at John F. Kennedy Intl Airport (omissions)
17 July 1996 TWA 800 in which 230 perished should be included in this list and was omitted. sources: Aviation Safety Network Report 7/17/1996, TWA 800 Wiki Page. 2 September 1998 Swissair Flight 111 ,229 perished, 31 October 1999 EgyptAir Flight 990, 217 perished. Same sources mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:581:8501:870E:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * None of those happened at the airport. Maybe TWA 800 as it was shortly after takeoff, but the others were far away from the airport. oknazevad (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Qantas to Sydney
I think the direct destination which Qantas flies to should be Sydney, and not Brisbane. Even through it switches plane, the flight number remains the same for both legs between JFK to LAX and LAX to SYD. However, while the same aircraft is used for JFK to LAX and LAX to BNE, the flight number changes, meaning they are different flights that happen to use the same aircraft. If you look at the Sydney Airport website, it lists New York JFK as a direct destination from it AND the New York JFK website lists Sydney as a direct destination from it. Thanks. --Agent5514 (talk) 07:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * What happens is that QF 12 flight number is JFK-LAX-SYD. However, the physical aircraft (747-400) from JFK-LAX continues to Brisbane, not Sydney. But then the 747 operates on 2 different flight numbers QF 12 and QF 16. The LAX-SYD and LAX-MEL flights are both operated by A380, which does not fly JFK-LAX ever. Effectively, there is no way to fly from New York to Australia on Qantas on a direct 1-stop flight with both the same aircraft and same flight number. By this logic, Qantas should not be included in the JFK destinations table at all, but how should we address this since QF still serves the airport?
 * We can delete Qantas from the destinations table but move the "d" footnote from the bottom to the top of the table explaining that Qantas serves JFK not "still serves JFK" since QF did not terminate JFK. Also, can't list Los Angeles for Qantas because one cannot purchase tickets from JFK to LAX. TravelLover37 (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

WOW Air
No WOW air-KEF on the listing ?--Bouzinac (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John F. Kennedy International Airport. 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.chmhotel.com/property.php?id=394
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130616001448/http://193.24.34.250/flightschedule/lhcargo_flightschedule.csv to http://193.24.34.250/flightschedule/lhcargo_flightschedule.csv
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140814184014/http://airportplazas.com/newsitem03.php to http://www.airportplazas.com/newsitem03.php

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) 17:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John F. Kennedy International Airport. 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/20140307010131/http://nycaviation.com/forum/threads/25224-The-lost-runway-of-JFK to http://nycaviation.com/forum/threads/25224-The-lost-runway-of-JFK

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) 17:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Use of "JFK" in History section
Since the History section is mostly about the airport before 1963, it seems confusing that the "JFK" abbreviation is used throughout to refer to the airport. &mdash;Gordon P. Hemsley&rarr; &#x2709; 15:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Three years, five months later, I happen upon your comment here (actually, I was looking for something like it), and as appears to occur frequently on this talk page, I see your very worthy observation has been ignored. I'm here to add that I think you raised an issue that has a direct bearing on the quality of this article. You raised it well over three years ago, yet no one has seemed to care. Repeated, routine references to this airport by the name "JFK", in describing events that occurred prior to the airport's having borne that name, represent anachronistic, unnecessarily confusing, and hence substandard writing. They need to be corrected with time-appropriate expressions for the airport.--IfYouDoIfYouDon&#39;t (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Timetables
I've reverted the addition of the timetables again, mainly as the references given are dynamic links, meaning they keep changing and will likely quickly go out of date with the content. If you can find static content that actually confirms the destinations (rather than ever-changing timetables), then I'll be more inclined to allow these to be added. Mdann52 (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The airline booking site references do not accurately verify direct destinations from the airport. They operate as a search engine to a bunch of destinations including those accessed indirectly and do not single out direct destinations. I see @Mealer2015 has also tried the same on other airport articles. Ajf773 (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Removed in popular culture
I just removed the pop culture section

The New York City John F. Kennedy International Airport appears in the 2007 Dreamworks Animation film Bee Movie and also appeared in the 2013 Disney film Planes.

It's unsourced so violates WP:V, and also, these are both animations where JFK was a minor setting, not the main topic or setting of the work. epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Qantas to Sydney
The continued listing of Brisbane as the Qantas destination in the destinations table is very unhelpful. Nowhere does Qantas, JFK or Brisbane Airport mention this link. The flight number of QF11/12 is to suggest it is a continuation from Sydney, which is supported by Qantas, JFK and Sydney Airport information. The page really should either list Sydney or omit the information altogether and simply have a note of the fact the flight number suggests it is a flight to Sydney but the plane usually returns to Brisbane. It is also important to note that at least once a week the plane actually does come from Sydney. Lala295 (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Lala295

Per WP destinations criteria, destinations should only be included if BOTH the aircraft and flight number are the same. Even though QF operate the B74E from LAX-SYD on Tuesdays, it is different than the one operating JFK-LAX, per [|FlightRadar24 link]. While I agree something needs to be done about this soon, for the time being I have kept Brisbane in the table as psychologically speaking, same aircraft/different flight number is more seamless than same flight no. and different aircraft. Qantas does sometimes depart the LAX-SYD flight on time even if the JFK-LAX flight is delayed and arrives afterwards. --Irehdna (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Qantas flies from JFK to SYD now, instead of JFK - BNE. On the Qantas website, the flight from JFK - SYD (QF12) is displayed as one flight, with a stop, but still the same flight, while JFK - BNE (QF12, QF 16) is displayed as two flights, still with one stop. -- Oemvee (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you will find that QF12 mysteriously changes aircraft type in Los Angeles. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * However, if you look at the website the JFK-SYD (OF12) makes a stop in LAX with JFK-LAX using a 787-9 Dreamliner while the LAX-SYD segment of the flight uses a Airbus A380. The same Boeing 787-9 aircraft on the JFK-LAX segment is still used on the LAX-BNE segment while LAX-MEL and LAX-SYD both uses an Airbus A380. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 04:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hatnote way too long
We must trim this beast down! The body text and infobox don't even appear on the first screen on smaller monitors. It's ridiculous. We don't need to call out Laguardia and Newark specifically, we can point the reader to Aviation in the New York metropolitan area. And the more obscure stuff like a Bolivian airport that hasn't had the name in decades (and never really used it, to the point where it isn't even mentioned in that article's lead) does not need to be in the hatnote. oknazevad (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Photographs of Idlewild (from LOC in public domain)
The Library of Congress has a number of public domain collections that might be useful illustrating the history of the airport. In particular, the NY World-Telegram had photos that it took at the airport that (unlike UPI photos) actually would have been donated into the public domain. The Korb Collection also has architecture photos. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/search/?q=%20Airport%20Idlewild KevinCuddeback (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Houston Bush
Changed the shorthand name "Houston-Intercontinental" to "Houston-Bush" in the listing of destinations, because that Houston airport's official name was changed several years ago to George Bush Intercontinental Airport" and the shorter "Houston-Bush" is the most common shorthand name used now.

--- Depends on your politics. Some people still call it "Washington National" and "Houston Intercontinental". Stoneriver2 (talk) 14:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

New York–JFK vs. New York–Kennedy
When looking at the "Airlines and destinations" table in all airport articles, cities with multiple airports are typically written as City–Airport Name (e.g., Paris–Charles de Gaulle, Milan–Malpensa, Chicago–O'Hare). This makes sense. What I do not see is the three-letter airport code. If Paris is Paris–Charles de Gaulle and not Paris–CDG, why isn't this airport New York–Kennedy in the airline table? Flights are also listed as "New York–Kennedy" when the three-letter code is not used (e.g., "Los Angeles, CA, to New York–Kennedy, NY"). Thoughts? --Precision123 (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Because "JFK" isn't just the three-letter code, but the common short name for the airport and for the man it's named after. People use the term in daily use. oknazevad (talk) 10:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)