Talk:Shanghai Pudong International Airport

Uh... i don't believe all international traffic is concentrated in Pudong... just have to check Colipon 04:40, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * nmColipon 04:45, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Terminal length
How long is the terminal?--Arado 15:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Pudong's busy status
Is this about to become China's busiest airport or what? Colipon+(T) 05:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Busiest is still by far the Beijing Capital International Airport. The terminal 3 which is under construction in Beijing will be as big as all 4 terminals at Heathrow combined.

Relevance
Exactly what is the significance of the bit about Continental and direct New York services? Does seem out of place, I' suggest that is removed Ianguy 01:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Continental Section
Since there's a section about Continental's wishes for a flight to Shanghai from New York (or Newark), I think that there should be some info on China Eastern Airline's direct flight from New York.

Lead
Please consider moving all the alternate information in the lead (different languages and scripts etc) and put them in the infobox instead.--Filll 17:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Royal Nepal does or does not fly to KIX?
To se the stage: RNA takes a B757, flies it from KTM, lands in PVG, and continues on to KIX. Then it turns around, flies back to PVG, then on to KTM.

First, the "Osaka-Kansai" entry was removed from this article. Doubting the accuracy of this edit, i searched for evidence and found that RNA flies to KIX, from PVG, once a week, for sure. I personally know an employee at KIX that serves that airline. Therefore, i reverted that edit.

Now, Elektrik Blue 82 has reverted that edit, remarking "rv: true, RA flies KIX-PVG-KTM, but it has no rights to transport pax between Japan and China, so it is unbookable".

So, who's right? I say that i am, because in plain terms, RNA flies to KIX from PVG. Elektrik says that the subtleties of transportation regulations limiting the ability of a Japanese person to fly to China via this flight means that even though a flight happens, we shouldn't list it. I disagree.

On the KIX page, it says RNA flies to PVG. Should that be removed as well, or perhaps it should say "Kathmandu (via Shanghai)".

I don't know the answer, but i think we should list the flight, and let the airline explain to the passenger the appropriate regulations and restrictions on passengers.
 * —Fudoreaper 04:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. It is true that Royal Nepal Airlines flies a route KTM-PVG-KIX. It is also true that the airlines show this flight as "via Shanghai" and thus PVG appears as a destination. However, what the airlines are not telling you is that people cannot fly Royal Nepal Airlines from Osaka and disembark at Shanghai. RA simply has no rights to transport people between Japan and China. This is the reason why it does not show up in oag.com and amadeus.net. You simply cannot book a flight on RA if you want to go from KIX to PVG and vice versa.


 * FYI, it is not my decision what to list and what not to list in the destination lists. I am merely following what is stated at WP:AIRPORTS. If you look at the formatting for the airport article structure, go to Airlines and destinations and read bullet 5. As of now, this is the current consensus. Thus, with this in mind, RA flights should be listed as simply (Kathmandu) for both KIX and PVG articles. /ɪlεktʃɹɪk bluː/ 16:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the detailed response, Elektrik. Upon reflection, and taking into consideration the addtional information that you provided, i agree with the consensus of not listing KIX on this page. If passengers can't get off, how can the airline be 'serving' the destination? Anyway, thanks for your feedback, looks like you made the right edit.  —Fudoreaper 05:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LogoShanghaiAirport.jpg
Image:LogoShanghaiAirport.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

GA?
Uhh, I don't think this was reviewed as passed as a Good Article. If this article has gone through the official process, please link to the relevant discussion. --Ideogram 19:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

some services will not begin
routes awarded and someone updated the article.

There is a list of destinations, including Maxjet (Seattle), Northwest (Detroit), United (Los Angeles), and others that are marked as pending government approval. Some of these applications will be denied because not all of them can be granted under the limitations of the air service agreement between the U.S. and the People's Republic of China. The number of flights are limited. Not all airlines asking for route authority can be accommodated under the agreement.

Editors should decide whether to leave the article as it is, make a note that the flights are subject to approval and that their are limitations preventing all of the applications from being approved, to delete the pending applications, or to create a separate paragraph explaining the limitations. Archtrain 18:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Defining "International"
In the destination listing, should "international" change to "non-domestic"? China defines Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan as not international but "out of realm" (jingwai). I've seen the signs at Guangzhou Baiyun which points passengers to "International and HK/Macau/Taiwan" flights. HkCaGu (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a note to the introduction. -- Beland (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, HK/Macau/Taiwan flights out of PVG are usually described as "regional". Cpc464 (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Destination Table
To my knowledge, only two formats (the classical list and the interactively sortable table) are approved by WP:AIRPORT. What's going on with this new table here? Aren't the flags and individual airport links too much? And the table looks ugly! HkCaGu (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Destination Map
is missng the UA flight to San Francisco. That's the flight that I always take so I had to notice it. Pal2002 (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Many destinations are missing, e.g., Copenhagen, Teheran etc etc. Map should be updated or removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.153.7 (talk) 09:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've checked recently and it doesn't look like there are any direct flights from New York, ORD, LAX, or SEA. I don't have the knowledge to blow things away in the table. But it probably needs a major update. 98.18.190.9 (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Pudong is 'busiest international airport'
Recently while editing the intro I removed a line that read Pudong is the busiest international airport in China. I think the original intent of this sentence was that Pudong has the highest number of international passengers out of any airport in China, but saying it is the 'busiest international airport' implies that it has the greatest number of passengers of all international airports in China, which is evidently contradictory to an earlier sentence declaring it to be the third-busiest airport in China. Thus its removal. Re-insertion of the content to the former implication is fine. Colipon+ (Talk) 13:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a valid point. I've revised the wording to make it more accurate and closer to the source.  However, you could've changed the wording instead of deleting the well-referenced paragraph altogether. -Zanhe (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I apologize for my haste, and take greater care in the future when dealing with similar issues. Your current revision is perfect. Colipon+ (Talk) 19:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Link all destinations to the airport articles
A way to improve this article is to link the destinations to the article of the airports that serve them. Please do this change.72.89.35.142 (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

FIRSTORIE hate my wikilinks
I follow your advice and improve the article with wikilinks. I have conflict with other editor, which he is VERY INSULTING ME. Please help me fix a poor situations! --B767-500 (talk) 04:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you think just like Denpasar/Bali, Sapporo-Chitose is wikilink? If you want to edit ,please do carefully, and I can help you. but like Denpasar/Bali Sapporo-Chitose Show you are irresponsible, also you changed some infomation just like Kota Kinabalu. FIRSTORIE (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * NOT ONLY Denpasar/Bali Sapporo-Chitose, like Osaka-Kansai Nagoya-Centrair Milan-Malpensa,more and more, please update carefully,thank you. FIRSTORIE (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Calm down guys. We're all trying to improve Wikipedia (and making the world a better place :-), so please be nice to each other.  While we should all try to be more careful and make fewer mistakes, we also need to remember to be tolerant of mistakes made by other people in good faith. -Zanhe (talk) 05:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible blurb on Japanese funding?
I believe this was mentioned on a previous version of the article. Maybe a sentence or two on it or the rationale behind it?