Talk:Thomas Cook Airlines

Unsigned comment
I have taken the opportunity to update the fleet information with the aircraft on order. The history of the airline has been explained in a little more detail. The Thomas Cook Airlines website address has been added.

Incidents
Noticed somebody has re-instated the list of incidents recently deleted, as most the incidents were not notable or fatal - I propose that they should be deleted. We could fill pages and pages for each airline with these incidents which happen regularly to every airline.MilborneOne 11:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to agree, every airline has little incidents every now an again, unless they are major or fatal they should not be listed here. voyagerweb

I also agree. It was myself who deleted the incidents in the first place, since other airline entries do not contain a similar section and it is unfair on Thomas Cook Airlines that they are 'singled out' in this manner. Not withstanding the fact that these are barely incidents worthy of mention in the first place. Mbcxharm


 * Catching up - I have deleted the incidents section as non are notable. MilborneOne 22:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Complaint handling
Every airline has little incidents, and maybe should know how to handle them. Organisations that don't know how to handle little incidents tend to find that lots of little incidents occur that don't get dealt with. That starts to affect their reputation if people get to know about it. One of the places that people can get to know about it is here: Matt Stan 22:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a user manual or soapbox, or even a blog.MilborneOne 12:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the page he was pointing to should be put up for deletion. Mr. Stannard's personal beefs with Thos. Cook, etc, belong on a personal blog or MySpace. If problems with Cook are so bad that they get reported in mainstream media, then there's something that can be referenced and could be included in the article or talk page, as it is, the only "references" are copies of Mr. Stannard's emails. Mr. Stannard doesn't seem to grasp that his userspace is property of Wikipedia and the content must adhere to WP rules. 67.176.196.10 06:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Thomas Cook logo.png
Image:Thomas Cook logo.png 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) 02:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I added the fair use rationale to the image description page. SempreVolando (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversy regarding perceived safety
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/8115216.stm

71 passengers refused to board a plane after being told that they would have to act as human ballast to balance the weight of the luggage. One of the cargo doors was jammed and could not be opened. The cargo being made to fit in only one of the compartments made the aircraft off-balance. The passengers who refused to fly so far have not been offered compensation and had to purchase their own replacement airfare. Tim Legg67.104.200.131 (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not particularly unusual one of the cargo bays could not be used so the passengers had to be re-arranged. No reason why passenger should get compensation if they walked away. Not controvertial and not notable enough to add to article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ryanair do this all the time. If the plane is lightly loaded then they block off rows of seats and make you sit in the middle. I certainly agree that this particular incident is not notable and shouldn't be included here. 84.9.33.175 (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Thomas Cook Airlines. 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/20081110110233/http://www.britishtravelawards.com:80/award_ER.php to http://www.britishtravelawards.com/award_ER.php

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 18:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

written as advertisement?
Greetings, friends. I agree that every minor Flight and safety incident may not merit reporting on Wikipedia. However, I'm not sure if the lunch purchasing options or number of radio stations available needs reporting. What would the group think of trimming the flak information down from its current status, which reads like a soft advertisement, to a more concise, neutral (non advertisement) point of view? Fleet info is awesome. Cities serviced is brilliant. Number of televisions available and the current in flight magazine... Not useful.

Apologies that I'm new and atrocious at the wiki guidelines and formatting. This probably should have gone in a new section (don't know how yet), but I didn't want to be a drive by tagger and tag the whole page as "reads like advertisement", which could hurt some careers and maybe put a ding in sales. Whoever write this content worked hard on it, and did a nice job writing copy, but it sticks out as a self promoting advertisement, with some bias to pull anything negative? 65.129.189.252 (talk) 07:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You are right 65 it does read like a copy from the company website, although the references are now longer valid so it is all unreferenced. It is not a problem to list the differences between the classes but it does need a good prune to remove the advertising blurb. MilborneOne (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the recent reverts
"There is nothing wrong with this page there are only 5 sources from the airline website which is hardly any so why are you making out that the whole page is based on the airline website?"
 * There's plenty of things wrong with this page (example: grammar, generally un-encyclopedic tone, excessive details about advertising on board, ...).
 * "only 5 sources from the airline website" - no matter the exact number, if those facts aren't reported on any other site than the airline's website, they might not be sufficiently notable (ex. the 2-4-2/2-3-2 seating configuration, which seems pretty standard for economy seating on the models used by the airline). Also, plenty of sections have either no ref or refs ONLY from the airline website. These should be replaced (or complemented) with refs from reliable, neutral sources - the airline's website is obviously not as they're trying to sell their flights :).
 * "why are you making out that the whole page is based on the airline website?" - sorry, never said or implied that

This edit
 * "Upgrading to premium features added extras such as increased width and comfier seats" - that's blatant advertising and it sadly has no place in a WP article

This other edit
 * Please, as per warning on involved user's talk page, please do not remove maintenance template without fixing the problem or providing an explanation on the talk page.

Thanks, hopefully we can resolve this calmly. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

If it is such a big matter then why don't you try adding references yourself to try and make it more reliable rather than just adding a message for other people to act on.
 * ""why are you making out that the whole page is based on the airline website?" - sorry, never said or implied that" You stated on one of your previous edits "other sources than the official website" which is implying that the airline website is the only source used which is not the case.

CBG17 (talk) 22:54 4 August 2017 (UTC)

"other sources than the official website" - bad wording, but that's true - the article (more precisely, some parts of it) needs sources from places other than the official website: are the headrests/extra legroom/... really something that distinguishes this airline from others or is it just marketing from the airline website. In any case, it is preferred to avoid non-neutral sources if at all possible. I don't have much time these days - it's my policy to change something if I am able to do it rapidly (ex. what I did here for KJFK airport) but if I fear the problem is larger (as in this case), then I do what I can and leave tags for somebody else to complete it if I don't eventually come back to do it myself. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)