Talk:Swissair

Untitled
''This page was placed on Votes for Deletion in June 2004. Consensus was to keep; view discussion at /Delete.''

Very misleading Article as a whole
This article about Swissair is really not representing real facts, specially the so called 'history' section. This article focusses on the demise of Swissair that happened in the late 90's. The whole history behind the airline is mentioned nowhere. At least the complete fleet and Accidents are mentioned after someone copied them from another site. for a real view about Swissair and its history you'd better go and check out the links such as the 'Gone with the wind' article or the fansite on www.swissair.aero. Once I have some more time I will try to improve the quality of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.9.112.196 (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Sabena link
I've deleted a See Also link to Sabena. Besides being former national airlines for small western European countries, there's little else to tie them together. If there's a reason it should go back in, please do so&mdash;but also please place enough information in the article to point out why it's important. --Milkmandan 09:40, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
 * There is indeed a tie between the two companies; the page on Sabena has a few details, but the story is much longer and more complicated than that. I'll restore the link and try to add a bit of information to the article. Schutz 11:06, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Little to tie them together? Sabena was part of SR at the end, and bankruptcy of both airlines was due to the same Hunter strategy. There is very much hat ties these two airlines together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.94.122 (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Needs reviewing
Some of this article contains pretty strong statements about why things happened, and I can't help but suspect there is some POV at work here. I would recommend any experts on the subject to insert a little balance. Andrewferrier 14:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I am thinking particularly of this excerpt: ''The grounding of all flights were, to a certain extent, triggered by the September 11 attacks which disrupted most airlines. But in the long term, it was Swissair's conservative administration board that caused the company's demise. Many members of this committee were Free Democratic Party of Switzerland politicians who made their careers in the cantonal governments or the national parliament. This serious conflict of interest prevented the airline from gathering competent specialists.'' Andrewferrier 14:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Andrew, for some time I have been the main editor of this page. I'm not keen newspaper reader anymore, and so my perception of the Swissair demise might be troubled... so, to refresh the things I know, I'm doing a little google research... it's sad that nearly nobody speaks German here:


 * http://www.kantonsrat.zh.ch/internet/Protokolle/NZZ/Nzz2001/NZ011022.HTM - a protocol of the Canton of Zurich parliament. All parties, the Democratic Christians, the Socialists, the Greens and even their enemy, the populist People's Party, condemn the vigorous "Hunter strategy" discussed in the Swissair article. The Free Democrats, however, is the single party that doesn't condemn the Swissair management. Instead, they divert the attention to the Swiss-German landing approach treaty which limits the landings leading over German territory, thus hindering the Zurich Airport company unique.


 * http://chronik.geschichte-schweiz.ch/swissair-debakel-grounding.html is a thorough description of the Swissair history, but in German. There, the liaisions between the Free Democrats are mentioned again. The consulting company, McKinsey, which told the Swissair into the Hunter strategy, has its connections to the Swissair - the very same person who devised the strategy at McKinsey was elected to the Swissair board of executives at a later time.


 * Regards, --Keimzelle 21:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe it was McKinsey who proposed the Hunter Strategy to Swissair, not PWC. PWC conducted Swissair's auditing, but did not advise on issues of strategy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.134.67 (talk) 07:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Table
I realise that my using the template for the history of accidents and incidents means that the dates are not displayed well, but at present I have run out of time to investigate how to tweak it. Perhaps someone already knows how; otherwise I aim to research and modify sooner rather than later. David Kernow 01:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * added nowrap="yes" for the date column. sikander 03:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, sikander! Method duly noted and I've now also centered the dates. I don't suppose it's possible to overrule the cellpadding/spacing for the sake of more room around the lengthier dates? Best wishes, David Kernow 06:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Current event reference
I saw this news story relating to this article, perhaps it will be useful:. → James Kidd ( contr / talk / email ) 04:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this one too: . → James Kidd ( contr / talk / email ) 04:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Swiss web link
Since this is an article on Swissair, and not on Swiss (which is referenced and has its own article) I removed the link to swiss.com. In its place, a link to the Internet Archive "Wayback Machine" and the archived copy of the last goodbye message from Swissair on the web.

Anybody who is closer to the current trial who would be able to keep the page up to date with the case? Jkstark 02:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Air Outre Mer
Why Air Outre Mer redirects to this page? I suppose that Air Outre Mer should redirect to AOM French Airlines. I have no knowledge in this field and I do not know how to verify this information but it is clear that one or both of this two page (AOM French Airlines and Swissair) are wrong.

LLP, Andcoz (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem with History
Swissair was a company that provided at least 65 years of perfect service (very good quality and reputation) so to limit the company's history to the last few years (hunter strategy and collapse) seems a bit strange. Swissair also had a long period of successful expansion (creation of companies like Swissôtel and Gate Gourmet) why isn't that mentioned in the History part?

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.15.136 (talk) 09:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

fansites
per WP:EL fansites should not be promoted....particularly over official sites whether past or present. --emerson7 18:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

infobox
inasmuch as the infobox is designed to give a snapshot at a particular point in time, it is more appropriate that an historic roster of executives be rather included in the text of the article. --emerson7 17:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Emerson; Jaquelyne Fouse and even Mario Corti were not key people at Swissair. They were only in the roles you mention at Swissair in the last one of 70 years of existance of this airline. I don't know what your personal relation to these persons is, but please stop deleting more relevant information to put them up again. As you mention yourself above, you can include these people in the article itself in the last chapter about the airline if you feel they are important enough. Also: The fleet size was not 72. It was (around) 312 aircraft in total, 72 in 2002, when the airline stopped flying. So the 'at the demise' or 'in 2002' is not an optional info, as the other number is just plain incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pateb (talk • contribs) 22:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * while all of the information you are adding is certainly relevant, your adding it to the infobox is inappropriate and should be included in the article. again, the infobox only gives a snapshot in time--in this case upon dissolution in 2002. it doesn't make sense to add the qualifier "at bankruptcy, etc," i think our readers are clever enough to understand that point. also, the term "key people" is generally defined as 'corporate executives'. corti and fouse were among the sa top five cadre at the end....the individuals you keep adding were not. historical data like is supposed to be part of the article...not the infobox. you might want to take a look at the articles on other defunct companies, and also the infobox template instructions for guidance. --emerson7 22:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Emerson. I answered you on your discussion page. Please read there as well. Just another thing about your comment above: Go an check sabena, Crossair or any other and you will find the same kind of information as well, with Moritz Suter being the only key person at Crossair or sabena having 87 planes at time of bankruptcy. Wikipedia is not only used by People who already know about the airline. Someone completely unrelated might get the impression that the airline (which most people confuse with Swiss anyway) still has 72 plane TODAY which is not correct as we both know. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pateb (talk • contribs) 08:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

key people
although swissair is now defunct, it is customary and appropriate to list as key people the significant individuals of the organisation at the time of failure. see here and here for examples. those currently included corti, fouse and luethi, are correct and properly cited per wp guidelines. --emerson7 20:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Emerson7, You cite examples, but there are also examples where just the last CEO is mentioned: sabena, where one former president is mentioned Crossair or where all former presidents are mentioned: Pan Am In fact, even the examples shown by yourself only have the Last CEO shown. You're putting up a whole list of people, which really did not have a lot to do with the history of the 70 years of existance of swissair. The only justifyable Person on your list is Mario Corti. 192.9.112.196 (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just inserting a note; I don't think 112.196's contributions qualify as vandalism, emerson7. They've got a debatable point. Master of Puppets  - Call me MoP! :D  17:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * your imput is appreciated. however this ip user has been caused constant disruptions on this page and has removed data without comment initiated rv wars etc. --emerson7 17:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The user has a point, though. If you look at Air Canada, they only list the CEO and Chairman (I'm not sure if Swissair has a chairman). Same with WestJet and Northwest Airlines. American Airlines and Lufthansa deviate from the example, so I'm not sure what the MoS on this is; however, the infobox should be concise and easy to skim through; listing excessive amounts of facts won't always be good. Master of Puppets  - Call me MoP! :D  03:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * key people is defined as senior management, and listed the individuals fit that bill. in any case, it is not permitted to removed edits that properly cited and correct. --emerson7 22:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Emerson, Master of Puppets This User has a valid point, i myself have been discussing exactly the same issue as the IP user with Emerson7, and he accused me of being against him. I've even made a list of the key historic people (much like in the PanAm Article cited above) but Emerson deleted that again. I don't know what the connection is between Emerson7 and these people but there must be a reason (that he has so far declined to share with us) that he keeps putting those people on the list. He even deleted my whole discussion with him on his User Discussion Page. I'm putting up my list of historic key people again, and I hope that Emerson7 will not vandalize it again, as apparently there are several people saying the same thing now, as I already did when Emerson first put that list into the infobox... Pateb (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * as before, 'key people' as in all company, business, organisation, infoboxes is for to list current or latest corporate senior officers. defunct organisations are no different. --emerson7 02:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * common practice (as stated above) is that for defunct companies not the 'current' or 'latest' key people are mentioned, but either the last chairman or a list of key persons during the lifetime of the company. Which makes sense, since a list of the last top-positions is of absolutely no use to the common user of the ecyclopedia. I have thus changed the information again. Hope you finally agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pateb (talk • contribs) 07:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * your 'opinion' of what is of use to the common user is noted but irrelevant. if you wish, you can make your case for changing the parameters for infobox airline, and perhaps your view will be adopted for all infoboxes. however, until that time, the current article should follow the standard guidelines. --emerson7 15:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Emerson Thanks for making a poll, i guess that is a good idea to find out what is best for the article... However, before i put my vote below, let me just add some thoughts:

-You say that the infobox is defined as it is, and cannot be changed. I disagree. For an existing airline -e.g. BA, Lufthansa, or any other- it is completely senceful to put in a field for the key persons, which includes the current key employees of the company. For a defunct company however, this field does not make much sence, much like the field 'ceased to exist' does not make sence for any existing airline. We do not have to change the infobox airline for this, it is flexible enough to be adapted to the article it describes. Or are you in favour of introducing a 'ceased to exist' field to all current airlines? i -Key Persons, or key employees are -by any definition- persons that were of KEY IMPORTANCE to the company. While the word key employees is pretty definite about the fact that they must still be employed, key persons is more vague and can include persons that are no longer employed. If you add the fact that a defunct company has no employees at all, it makes absolutely no sence that 'key people' should be the last persons that were in key positions. In fact Swissair is a perfect example of the contrary. None of the persons you mention were in their positions more than a couple of months, when the airline was already in deep financial trouble, so none of them had any influence in the 70 years of existence of this company. As mentioned above, for an active airline it might make sense to include the top management as key persons as they are definitely their key employees.

-You keep mentioning the two examples of British jet and Lehman Brothers. -As mentioned various times in the past months I am in favor of the following options for Swissair: Once again, I fail to see the sense of the version that you keep posting which is essentially the last top management which in this specific case didn't even last for more than a year out of 70...
 * The article about British Jet has exactly one Key Person, their founder.
 * The article about Lehman has exactly one person, their (i presume) last CEO, and they are not an airline iirc.
 * Your Version of 'Key Persons' of Swissair includes various people, all of them in the last SR Management for less than a year.
 * use their last CEO (Mario Corti), like Lehman Brothers, Sabena and many more
 * use their founder (Balz Zimmermann and Walter Mittelholzer) like British Jet, Crossair and many more
 * use some of the key persons during their history, including those above, like PanAm and many more.

-You keep posting negative notes on my personal profile, such as 'edit war' etc whilst you completely fail to fully disclose your point of view of why your version should be of any use other than promoting the names of the people you mention in the list. Please stop vandalizing my profile, thanks.

-You say my opinion is noted but irrelevant. why is my opinion irrelevant if there are more people supporting my so called 'opinion' than yours. Why is my fact based 'opinion' an opinion and your list of your personal favorite SR employees a fact?

Well those are my thoughts (you may regard them as irrelevant...). Now i'll go and put my vote below... Pateb (talk) 02:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC: appropriate entry for infobox:key people parameter
should the 'key people' parameter in infobox airline include:
 * 1) current or latest corporate senior officers;
 * 2) historical personnel, or;
 * 3) nothing

-- emerson7 04:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusion: The consensus of this rfc between registered wikipedians is that only the ceo at the time of failure should be listed. User:MilborneOne makes the significant and valid point that this is an inappropriate forum for this issue and should be raised at Template talk:Infobox Airline. If or when that discussion occurs, this article should be brought in line with, and conform to whatever whatever guidelines and decisions that come forth.--emerson7 19:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Option 1: universally 'key people' in company, business, and organisation, infoboxes is for to list current or latest corporate senior officers. although swissair is now defunct, it is customary and appropriate to list as key people the significant individuals of the organisation at the time of failure. see here and here for examples. --emerson7 15:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am for option 3. 217.162.135.24 (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Option 3: Defunct company has no key Personnel, thus no key person.
 * Option 2: Key peronnel for a defunct company are people formerly/historically important to the company.
 * Option 4: the last CEO.

Pateb (talk) 03:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello again Emerson, it seems you are the only one for your version, so i've reduced the list. I'm considering opening a wikipedia account, but currently i did this change still with the ip address account - this is however no reason for you to discredit me. 217.162.135.24 (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi am for no one or historic too. Not for the last persons as Emersoin7 says —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.9.112.196 (talk) 06:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Emerson. Option 1 has problems because on defunt airlines with a long history, the list of key persons is long as well. Sometimes we end up with a list of 3, 4 persons in a small space. I ask myself why should we list people at the time of failure and not also the ones at the time of success. Option 2 has problems because deciding who is important or not is very subjective. Option 3 is reasonable only if the names appear in the text.


 * I vote for option 2 with an addendum: to keep it to a maximum of 3 names, which can include founder, an important CEO and the one at the time of closure or other choice names. I know it is subjective but it certainly quickly calls our attention to the really important names. Others can be listed in the text. (Brunoptsem (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC))


 * Totally in favour of option 2. For a defunct company/Airline put in a max of a couple of historically important persons such as founder, maybe someone like a 'saviour' at some time during the time of life of the company which stands out from other people, and -if relevant- maybe the last CEO. But definitely not the last Management, that does not make sense, at least not for old companies with a long history.194.209.131.192 (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not really an issue for this article as it is a multi-use template and should really be discussed at Template talk:Infobox Airline. MilborneOne (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As said on that page: I would suggest to list only the last CEO, all CEOs and/or the founder. Listing two or three "important" key figures seems too subjective. Belgian man (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * so can we now finally remove the unnecessary people form the info box? 217.162.135.24 (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please provide a link to the relevant RFC discussion, and provide full details of what changes are required. —  Tivedshambo   (t/c) 12:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: If you are unfamiliar with the WP:RFC process, please ask for help, but DO NOT continue to revert or otherwise delete affected data from the article. --emerson7 00:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Avireal
says that Avireal was Swissair's facility management arm and separated in 1997. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Smartcool's global distribution initiative extends into United Arab Emirates.." PR Newswire. 26 June 2007.

1979 crash
Here are reports about the 1979 crash in Athens: WhisperToMe (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * German: http://www.bfu.admin.ch/common/pdf/992d.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/65XH8aMWI
 * French: http://www.bfu.admin.ch/common/pdf/992f.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/65XH1yfht

many, many problems
This article has some serious issues, including some long sections that read like indictments rather than dispassionate rendering of facts and serious grammar and language use problems. I stumbled across the article through Wikilinks and have no significant expertise, but someone who knows this topic and has less of a bone to pick than prior authors could make some major improvements by cleaning up the discussion to make it more factual/encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.54.34 (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Parts read as if translated from another language or written by a non-English speaker. -- Beardo (talk) 04:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Swissair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140729090949/http://www.amz-architekten.ch/pdf-upload/1001_Swissair_27_EE.pdf to http://www.amz-architekten.ch/pdf-upload/1001_Swissair_27_EE.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Long Time Past
'''The judiciary is continuing to examine why Swissair acquired counselling that supported the Hunter Strategy, and why Swissair continued to make certain payments despite nearing insolvency. Questions have also been raised about federal aid given to Swissair and the politicians involved. The highly competitive nature of the market during the business's final years also precipitated its demise: like rival company Sabena, Swissair fell victim to the competition of budget airlines such as Ryanair and EasyJet.'''

Disclaimer: I know nothing of Airlines.

If the company went under 20 years ago, shouldn't the judiciary have come to some conclusions yet ? Even in my own country, Great Britain, Public Enquiries generally wind their way to the sea before 2 decades.

I will say avoiding McKinsey just seems like common sense.

A BBC correspondent said regarding the collapse "Something did die in Switzerland that day: not just an airline but an image the Swiss had of themselves and, more importantly, of their business leaders" and "The Swiss financial community's reputation for good business sense was already seriously damaged by the Swissair disaster."

This seems remarkably strong, most countries have collapsed companies, Britain has had thousands upon thousands: even the USA has had a few. Just gratuitous smug schadenfreude --  which admittedly is not uncharacteristic of the BBC. Claverhouse (talk) 04:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

COVID restrictions
Traveling end of July, is there a restriction on covid shots, already have shots and booster but traveling with family member that does not. 2603:9000:9004:679A:793A:55F4:BD87:CB93 (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)