Talk:Kenya Airways

Untitled
The image depicting the KQ Boeing 767 in the new livery is from airliners.net

Was the image owners permission sought? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kiplagat (talk • contribs).

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kq 787.jpg
Image:Kq 787.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) 22:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

KQ article improvement
Hello everybody! I'm currently improving (at least trying) the Kenya Airways article which, before I started editing it, seemed to me somewhat disordered, including out-of-place and unreferenced information, as well as irrelevant sections (some of which I already removed). I'm trying to do my best at improving this article (I'm sure I'm not the only one), but this is a hard task and I need some collaboration regarding references. So, if you have any interesting reference please let me know and I'll include its contents into the article. Despite I'm particularly interested in people closely linked to the matter (say, for instance, Kenyan people), everybody's collaboration will be welcome. Thanks for your cooperation.

Regards --Jetstreamer (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Jetstreamer, thank you for your efforts at improving this Kenya Airways article.
 * Here is some updated information with regards to their 787s. Hopefully they will order GEnx engines for these 787s.
 * http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engines-components/news/kenya-settles-boeing-787-delivery-delay-0414?cid=nl_atw_dn&YM_RID=#email
 * 14 April 2011
 * Kenya Airways said it reached a settlement with Boeing on a new delivery schedule for nine Boeing 787-8s.
 * It had re-affirmed it's intention to exercise the options on four additional 787s “after the initial nine aircraft have been delivered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.115.223 (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for solution
This is my proposal to handle the references. The numbers of the references are based on this version of the article.
 * 1) The multiple citations of the same reference should be reduced to one within the same (sub-)section.
 * 2) Unlikely challenged statements like “founded in 1977, after the dissolution of East African Airways” or “full member of SkyTeam” do not need multiple references, the official company-history should be enough.
 * 3) There is no need to cite every single seat-configuration ([37] - [44]), ref [36], which links to the Fleet Information page and serves as the source for number of aircraft, is sufficient for all.
 * 4) The same applies for the retired fleet, a single source mentioned in the head-line is enough, up to 3 refs for every single plane is simply ridiculous (refs [49] - [51]).
 * 5) Orders: The only valid source for Boeing-orders is Boeing and KQ, and only firm orders are counted. Agreements or Options are not notable.
 * 6) As for the fleet age: airfleets.net as the reliable source, as they calculate based on delivery dates. Planespotters.net is just a blog and not reliable.
 * 7) Accidents: Substitute all refs by a single one, preferable with Template  , which is destined for incidents and accidents in Aviation, as ASN provides facts based on the final, official report. We do not need several copies of the same press release from different news sources, nor do we need out-dated speculations and information. Further both accidents have their main articles, so we only provide an introduction here, which does not need to be referenced at all.

Best regards, --R.Schuster (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, that's what I call consensus. You are right in many aspects you stated. I will try to fix the problem, and in doing so will discuss with you the best way to improve the article. My first action will be the migration of all the references concerned with both accidents into the proper accident articles. Really appreciate your comments. Please stay in touch, love this kind of cooperation. Best wishes.--Jetstreamer (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * References for KQ431 already removed from the article.--Jetstreamer (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅--Jetstreamer (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary cleanup tag
Thanks for providing the article with the Citation guidelines. It is stated there that “A good rule of thumb is that one footnote after a sentence is almost always sufficient, two or three may be a good way of preventing linkrot for online sources or providing a range of sources that support the fact, and more than three should be avoided as clutter.” Unsurprisingly, it is also stated there that that is not a Wikipedia policy. The cleanup tag is hence unnecessary at this point of the discussion. On the contrary, the article was tagged as ‘Under construction’, i.e., it is not in its final version, on the basis of the concerns we already discussed upon. Regards.--Jetstreamer (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Tag removed.--Jetstreamer (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have reinserted the cleanup tag, as there is still a WP:Citation overkill. If you dare to remove the tag again without solving the problem it will be considered as vandalism. --R.Schuster (talk) 11:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I kindly raised the matter to administrator levels, as you show no will in solving the conflict by relying upon inexistent policies. Meanwhile, the tag has been removed.--Jetstreamer (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Placed the above template following an administrator advice. The dispute is now going for a third-party opinion.--Jetstreamer (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I firstly removed the tag, as no further request is needed.      ~ AdvertAdam   talk  11:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bobrayner. I honestly don't like the tone that the short argument went through, but I highly recommend cleaning-up the article (without tagging it). I've seen multiple references on a simple statements, where there's no conflicts between them. Just pick whatever reliable source there is, and remove what's unneeded. Any comments, disagreements, and opinions are welcome :). Happy editing everyine.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  11:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * R.Schuster has removed (again) references over citation overkill concerns throughout the article. That task was done in a matter of some 20 minutes. The first thing I wonder is whether he/she had the time to read all the references he/she removed? I don't think so. Apart from that, WP:CITEKILL clearly states that "...two or three (references) may be a good way of preventing linkrot for online sources or providing a range of sources that support the fact, and more than three should be avoided as clutter." All sentences and/or paragraphs have at most that number of sources, and are hence in compliance with the guidelines. I see therefore no reason for removing any reference from the article (unless, of course, that reference is wrong or does not support the companion material anymore), and the only reason I guess he/she did so is that the aesthetics of the page is not of his/her liking. I intend (who doesn't?) to take this article to GA status (as I actually did almost on my own with Ethiopian Airlines, and helped Sp33dyphil with Vietnam Airlines). I'm perfectly aware of the criteria most of the reviewers have in evaluating articles. That said, seeing that onlyR.Schuster and me have been editing/expanding the article in the recent past, should he/she/we need to discuss the removal of any reference, we can do it anytime we want. I believe that nominating the article for a GA position will solve the dispute we're engaged into. Let the reviewers decide whether the article meets that criteria or not. If it does, the article is promoted. If it does not, both should follow the suggestion of the reviewers to get it promoted. It is a happy ending for the article in either way.--Jetstreamer (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Archived references not used in the article
--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 13:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Fleet figures sourced by official information
This edit and the related previous ones  have been reverted on the basis of WP:VNT and the preferred use of official sources for fleet tables, as previously established in WP:AIRLINE discussions. Please discuss here or start a new thread at WT:AIRLINE if there's any disagreement. Boeing 777s are still in the fleet according to the official website.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 14:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Better safety record than Ethiopian Airlines?
All of Ethiopian airlines' fatal crashes combined gives us 337 fatalities (flight 961 was hijacked, flight 904 was caused by pilot error, and flight 604 was caused by a bird strike). However, according to the ASN, all of Kenya Airway's fatal crashes (there were only two, respectively) combined gave a total of 283 fatalities, which is 54 less than EA! Unlike EA though, both of KQ crashes were both causes by pilot error. I don't know whether or not the cause of a crash contributes to the record's ranking, though I'm pretty sure it does, but then again KA had less fatalities than EA. So, does Kenya Airways also have a good (and possibly even better) safety record? Tigerdude9 (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Not really relevant as we dont compare safety records. MilborneOne (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

GAR request and "history" section reorganization
I have tagged the "history" section for reorganization due to its lengthy chronology. The existing GAR request tag is appropriate as this is a possible WP:MoS layout issue (GA criterion 1b). I'm not nominating it for GA delisting just yet; someone with topic-level expertise should come edit this section so we can get rid of the GAR request tag! --Nemoschool (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added some sub-sections to the ″History″ section. What do you think?--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 21:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sub-sections organise the content much nicer. Aeonx (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I would also like to see some more recent content in the article. The 'Future Plans' section talks about the 10-year Mawingu plan made in 2011-12, that was scrapped in 2015 after it was found to be failing. There are news reports from 2 weeks ago that Kenya Airways was close to collapse. It is difficult to assess content-wise because in fact some of the recent events is almost too recent to include. The currency of some the article should be looked at to maintain GA status. Aeonx (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi all. This is currently the oldest GAR request. The Project Mawingu was covered in the history section as well as future plans so I combined them. I think future plans is not necessary (especially as plans don't always work) so incorporated that whole section in. Does this resolve the GAR request? AIRcorn (talk) 09:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)