Talk:United Airlines/Archive 2

New Logo
Any ideas what we should do about the new logo? I'm not familiar with fair use, etc. so I don't want to be the one to upload the new logo, but it might be worth mentioning in the body of the article. Also, United has the proposed livery for a new Dreamliner ---> Safesler 13:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

ITN
This article has been nominated to appear on the Main Page In the news section at WP:ITN/C. There is consensus for posting, but I'm reluctant to put it up until:
 * the merger section gets a copyedit- every paragraph starts with "On X Y Z Date..." and
 * a little more information is added to the section. Some of the information in this source might be helpful there. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

New Hub Information
According to the new company website, www.unitedcontinentalmerger.com, Houston George Bush Intercontinental Airport will be the combined company's largest hub not Chicago's O'hare.

"The new company’s corporate and operational headquarters will be in Chicago and it will maintain a significant presence in Houston, which will be the combined company’s largest hub. Additionally, the CEO will maintain offices in both Chicago and Houston."

http://www.unitedcontinentalmerger.com/press-release —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.102.228 (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed Narita and Honolulu as hubs as nowhere on the new merger website mention those 2 being hubs. For now, the airlines will continue to operate seperate until they receive a single operating certificate from the FAA. So, ORD is still the largest hub for the pre-merger UA and not the combined. Remember, they are still 2 seperate carriers until meger is completed. Snoozlepet (talk) 05:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I simply removed the whole section. Post-merger hub info should be in the merger section. Mentioning how any dests or hubs the blue-globe UA will have is ridiculous at this point. HkCaGu (talk) 07:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Another possible merger? Could US Airways wait 24 months to align with the new "United"
Could US Airways "Ugly Girl" be in another play (merger) with the "new" United? US Air might be thinking so, although it might encounter strong antitrust opposition from the DOJ because the "other three" (United Delta, American) would draw attention of the antitrust committee because of there size before the merger. You"ll be the judge.

This is the article that they see themselves in a merger http://www.thestreet.com/story/10896028/1/us-airways-eyes-merger-global-growth.html Arivera0426


 * The article does not specifically state which carrier it plans to combine with (possibly American Airlines). However, this is mere speculation at this time. Snoozlepet (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

United's International Rank (with respect to its size)
Recently, while reading the July traffic releases of US majors, I realized that United flew fewer revenue passenger miles than Delta. It also flew fewer Available Seat Miles. I am not sure about enplaned passengers. Both articles were from the Associated Press

Quotes: "The airline, [Delta], which is restructuring under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, said traffic fell 0.6 percent to 11.76 billion revenue passenger miles, an industry unit measuring one paying passenger flown one mile. Capacity fell to 13.77 billion available seat miles."

"Traffic grew to 11.07 billion revenue passenger miles in July from 10.7 billion in the same month a year ago" --United

Futhermore, year to date for United is 83,224,423 ASM, for Delta it is 86,092,478. (PR Newswire)

Again, if you look at the figures for passengers enplaned, Delta sits at 62,794,884 and United at 40,957,000. (PR Newswire

The articles can be found:

AP, United AP, Delta PR Newswire, United PR Newswire, Delta

Perhaps the Wiki article on United should reflect these changes. United is now number 3 in ASM and RPM and passengers enplaned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UAAC (talk • contribs)


 * No, United Airlines is still the number two carrier in the world. United's traffic only includes mainline ops, while delta's includes it regional subsidiaries. Delta, the actual delta, not comair, nor the contract carriers, flew 73,271,114 ASM making delta 12% smaller than United. Fry1234, KORD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fry1234 (talk • contribs)


 * But, aren't United's regionals merely under the umbrella of United Express? That is included in the figures.


 * "United Airlines (Nasdaq: UAUA - News) operates more than 3,700* flights a day on United, United Express and Ted to more than 210 U.S. domestic and international destinations from its hubs in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, Chicago and Washington, D.C."


 * Wouldn't it all be included in the System figures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by UAAC (talk • contribs)


 * I've always asked why we don't do it and always get the answer of, "they aren't part of UAL Corp". Delta may do it, but UAL doesn't. We should, but dont. Yet, with contract carriers, UA would still be larger than DL. Fry1234, KORD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fry1234 (talk • contribs)

Please don't remove pics of new livery
To all you IP users who hate the new livery and don't want to see it on this page: ''I don't like the new livery any more than you do, but have I ever removed the pics? No!'' As much as I hate the new livery and as much as I don't want to see it here, have you seen me remove any new livery pictures? I repeat, no. (If you don't believe me, feel free to look at the article history) They belong here, as much as you (or me) wish they weren't.  In Wikipedia, you are supposed to write articles with a neutral, unbiased point of view, which means you shouldn't just get rid of a certain photo just because you don't like the livery shown on it. So please stop removing the livery. It belongs here, and it's not Wikipedia's fault that United has adopted this crappy new livery. (See, I hate it too! Don't get me wrong.)   &mdash;Compdude123 (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You obviously haven't paid much attention to the article. There is already a UA 777 in CO livery on this page, and it's been here for quite awhile. The pictures you keep adding aren't necessary and clutter the article. The information that UA adopted the CO livery is already present on this page and has been for quite sometime, and Wikipedia is not a place to advertise for United. We have their "new" livery pic on here, and the "new" logo in the info box. No need to turn the whole page into free advertising for the airline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.82.207.240 (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You really think I haven't looked through this article in full? I know we already have a 777 pic in the new livery.  As for the other pictures, I wasn't the one who originally added them and my re-adding of these pics is NOT an act of advertising/ marketing for United.  I don't even work for them; otherwise I wouldn't be editing this article.  Adding pictures of an airline's aircraft is not advertising; what makes you think that?  Advertising looks like this.  I absolutely do not support anything that looks like advertising but simply having those all those pics that you (and/or others) keep deleting is not.  You say we already have a 777 pic in the new livery and the new logo.  That's just two pictures.  But there are twelve other pics of aircraft in earlier liveries too!  To repeat what I said in my edit summary from the second time I re-added the photos, as much as you may hate the new livery, please stop removing it. (Remember, I hate it too) The photos of the new livery depict the BRAND of United Airlines, and last time I checked, this is the BRAND section.  I think you have some sort of special attachment to the old livery, but you don't understand this wikipedia rule.  I hate to break it to you, but as time goes on, more and more new livery pics will be added to this article.  Just chill, dude!  &mdash;Compdude123 (talk) 03:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok here's a compromise (hopefully): I deleted the 777 pic in the new livery and replaced it with a better picture of a 747 in the ugly new livery.  I also re-added the photo of the aircraft tails.  While that photo shows aircraft in the new livery, it also shows aircraft in two older liveries for comparison.  To address your concern about that section becoming too crowded, I arranged the images in the brand section so that they were evenly spaced throughout the article.  If this doesn't suit your needs, please give me a valid reason why and stop reverting my edits.  Thanks, Compdude123 (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Split to History of United Airlines
The History section of this article has about as many sections as the History of Delta Air Lines article, and is longer than the History of Iberia Airlines and History of Qantas articles. With UA continuing to grow the history section will just get longer. It is time that the UA history section gets its own article, and actually this was discussed before (Talk:United_Airlines/Archive_1). From that discussion, now UA and CO are under a single operating certificate, and have combined operations. Already since last month the article History of United Airlines exists. It will also make room for pictures of both old and UA liveries to be shown since there is greater space on the two pages. Plus it will be easier to organize and expand the UA history section on its own page, while keeping a summary and the latest developments on the main page, just like the DL article. Enginesmax (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I will support your move if, and only if, you keep a good summary of the airline's history that is more than a couple sentences long. It should be as long as the history section on British Airways, which also has its own history sub-article.  This will allow room to keep pictures of historical aircraft and liveries such as the DC-10, the 747SP in the awesome-looking Rainbow Scheme (best livery ever!), and pics like the 777 and also the post-merger (and I should mention ugly) UA livery.  So, if you do split the history section, please make the summary in this article much longer than a couple sentences.  &mdash;Compdude123 (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Air New Zealand is another good example of how long the history section should be, despite having its history section split off into its own article.  &mdash;Compdude123 (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Its been changed now to a large summary section. Enginesmax (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Great! Looks just wonderful! I liked that you split off the brand section as well as that was getting fairly long. &mdash;Compdude123 (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Depiction of UA's changes in livery


Prompted by 's three reversions: I am bringing this edit war here. Let me summarize the history from my perspective.
 * 01:43, 27 January 2012
 * 05:37, 27 January 2012‎
 * 22:34, 28 January 2012‎

When I encountered this 26 January 2012 version of United Airlines, I noticed United Airlines contained six images, five of which displayed UA's aircraft livery. Having become aware via this commons project of the existence of the 2nd image at right, an image that depicts UA's "Stars and Bars" livery of two planes at Portland International Airport, I made this change, supplying 'replace "stars and bars" image with one that depicts the stars' as my edit summary. In response, reverted my change, asserting "Undid revision 473398759 by 72.244.206.189 previous image better, as United was a launch customer for the DC-10, and it only makes sense to have a DC-10 pic here"; I reverted ('rv the rv since image better depicts "stars and bars" mentioned in the caption; take rv to the talk page, keeping WP:OWN in mind'), prompting Compdude123 to revert me ("Undid revision 473461953 by 72.244.206.178 DC-10 pic makes more sense, You are welcome to complain about this on my talk page") and then make this change ("remove "stars and bars" info from caption; not necessary")  I revert ("rv the rv; you just did a second rv of my good faith edit ; take this to this article's talk page so that others can contribute to our dispute")  Compdude123, skirting the letter of WP:3RR, waited a bit then reverted me again ("Undid revision 473467520 by 72.244.206.178 Don't revert my revert; respond on my talk page. Thanks!")

I am of the opinion that my initial change was an article improvement made in good faith, and does not warrant reversion. Compdude123's assertion that it "only makes sense to have a DC-10 pic here" ignores the theme of the photographs in the history section, which is to depict the changes to UA's livery. Compdude123 is welcome of course to expand the history section and cover UA's role in the launch of the DC-10, but that should be done in a way that is consistent with WP:SS and WP:SPLIT and the current contents of United Airlines and History of United Airlines. Thanks. 72.244.204.211 (talk) 07:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't forget that the DC-10 is also painted in a livery, too. It's not like it's just bare metal.  Would you have any objections to putting the stars and bars livery in the brand section of this article?  &mdash;Compdude123 (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought one of the other 150 watchers of this article might have had an opinion. Since they don't, its your opinion vs. mine, and there are some practical reasons for me to think you have strong opinions on this matter:
 * After less than a year, you're in the top ten when it comes to edits of United Airlines;
 * The Userboxes at User:Compdude123 include, among other aviation-related interests; and
 * Your userboxes also include, so I start with one strike against me regardless of the specifics.
 * Unless other editors comment favorably on the merits of my argument, I am deferring to your judgment. 72.244.204.3 (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, to end this dispute, I will move the DC-10 image to the fleet history section as it is mentioned there that UA was a launch customer for the DC-10, and so the the picture will fit better there anyway. And I will re-add your stars and bars picture to the history section. Now you may ask me why I didn't just do this in the first place and my answer will be why didn't I think of that in the first place. And I apologize for my behavior of "owning" this article and I will try and stop myself from acting that way towards you or others in the future. Do not let this hinder you from continuing to contribute to WP, though most users would recommend creating an account (but that's ultimately up to you, of course). &mdash;Compdude123 (talk | contribs) 05:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Premium cabin upgrades and rebranding
United announce that they will be upgrading and rebranding its premium cabins on international flights according to this source: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/united-rebrands-premium-cabins-upgrades-160500453.html. I updated to the cabin section of the article but I am confused which cabin will be renamed to what. Can someone put the information in the right place in the article when someone gets a chance? Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources on United's move to the Willis Tower
WhisperToMe (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Karp, Gregory. "United move to make it biggest tenant at Willis Tower." Chicago Tribune. April 19, 2012.
 * Ori, Ryan. "United parent mulls HQ move to Willis Tower." Crain's Chicago Business. March 10, 2012.
 * Roeder, David. "United weighs move to higher ground, Willis Tower, say sources." Chicago Sun-Times. March 7, 2012.

erroneous map of United Airlines destinations
File Uniteddestinations.png is erroneous.

United Airlines' West Africa destinations are Accra (Ghana) and Lagos (Nigeria) as is stated correctly in the article.

The map instead indicates Ivory Coast and Nigeria.

Tomrohwer (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

United Continental Holdings Fleet table
Please can we have a look at this Talk:United Continental Holdings Thanks - --JetBlast (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Seating Configs
Hi, I have tweaked and referenced all the seating configs. The problem is the 777-200 & 200ER are not separated on the United website. I am struggling to find what seats are in the 200 and the 200ER. Do we merge the 2 types on here in order to source the seating config? Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

On-time arrival rate
User:Dilwala314 has a point. The on time arrival rate of an airline, updated perhaps once a year, is at least as encyclopedic as its current financials. -- Neil N   talk to me  19:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a travel guide. You shouldn't have reverted it back without consensus. --JetBlast (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * NeilN, i urge to stop edit waring and wait for consensus. --JetBlast (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have the same urging for you. This is as much "travel guide" information as is the list of hubs, the frequent flyer program, the codeshare agreements, the fleet info, the cabin info... -- Neil N   talk to me  20:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You know full well that i am not. You have been here a while and should know better. Disappointing.... --JetBlast (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, at least I opened a talk page discussion, something I would expect an experienced editor would do when faced with a good-faith constructive edit. -- Neil N   talk to me  20:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Please note that IP 68.119.73.36 has been warned for edit warring on this article. AfricaTanz (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

JetBlast do you want to ask for a WP:3O? -- Neil N   talk to me  15:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion - hello all. Sourced information about the on-time arrival rate of an airline seems perfectly relevant; while it's not clear that it belongs in the lede, I certainly see not reason why it shouldn't be included in the article. Mandalini (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I cant see that the on-time arrival rate is really encyclopedic and is more suited to wikitravel, if secondary sources make observations that it is particularly low or high than that could be mentioned as part of the history with consideration for weight in the article, otherwise not needed. MilborneOne (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How is the list of hubs, the frequent flyer program, the codeshare agreements, the fleet info, the cabin info encyclopedic, then? -- Neil N   talk to me  17:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds like an OTHER STUFF argument, certainly not the question being asked. If you would like to raise them as separate issues then suggest ask at WP:AIRLINES as they dont relate to one article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So you think on-time arrival rate isn't encyclopedic but haven't thought about the "other stuff", right? That's fair. I've raised the topic here. -- Neil N    talk to me  17:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Other stuff means just because something else exists it is not a valid argument in any discussion. So this discussion is only concerned with on time arrival rate and not other stuff in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, been around here a long time and am quite well aware of OTHERSTUFF. I disagree with your interpretation though. OTHERSTUFF is usually applied cross-article and the entire essay focuses on that. We definitely look at "other stuff" within articles when considering WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, consistency, completeness, etc. -- Neil N   talk to me  19:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hub ranking between ORD and IAH
There has been some confusion on hub rankings for Chicago-O'Hare and Houston. A couple of users recently changed the introduction on this article, the O'Hare, and the Houston Bush Airport pages saying that O'Hare is the largest hub for United and Houston is the second-largest hub. Just a note, Houston is indeed the largest UA hub (based on passengers the airline carried but the second-largest based on the number of flights) and O'Hare is the second-largest hub. News articles and various press releases specifically state the airline's biggest hub will be in Houston. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 07:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

real problems with the information box on founding date
From the corporate standpoint, I am sure that United likes to brag about its founding as Varney in 1927. However, Wikipedia should be more neutral and honest.

Like it or not, the current United Airlines is United in name only. It's actually Continental Airlines that took on the United name probably because United's name is more established. The same thing happened with Continental when it was swallowed up by Texas International.

To follow the corporate lineage, it would be more honest for Wikipedia to:

1. list the founding of the United Airlines name, which is 1931.

2. More honest, is to list the predecessor airline, which is Texas International.

I will attempt to make a change. If you disagree, you should explain your reasoning. If you just change it without explanation, this should be considered as a bad faith, badly documented change that should be changed back. This is because this is an important issue.

Once again, merely changing my change without explanation is a bad faith change. Let's discuss!

EatingGlassIsBad (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

real problems with advertising
This article has real problems bordering on advertising. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising board or a corporate version of LinkedIn.

I removed the mailing address for the company. Why have it?

There is a long section about BusinessFirst and other things related to cabin classes. This seems like advertising. It is not encyclopedic. What would be encyclopedic is mention of an airline developing business class (it wasn't United). EatingGlassIsBad (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Why single out United Airlines when there's a section on cabins of service on almost every airline page? Look at the pages for Lufthansa, British Airways, Etihad Airways, and Delta Air Lines. Perhaps reincorporate the section albeit with shorter BusinessFirst section.DReifGalaxyM31 (talk) 02:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree This page has been substantially whitewashed. Compare it with what the page looked like in 2011: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Airlines&oldid=414913527 Also, someone deleted this talk page history, that is also not acceptable! Can someone relink the archives to the top of the talk page? I suggest this page should be locked. It's undergone horrible whitewashing and POV edits from anonymous users. Jeff Carr (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

United cutting its Houston-Paris route
Chronicle story about the airline cutting its Houston-Paris route: WhisperToMe (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Collier, Kiah. "United cuts route to Paris in the fall" (Archive). Houston Chronicle. July 6, 2012.

POOR English in United Club JFK section
Dear Wiki-nerds,

I think some bozo is doing some very bad editing of the United Club article and I wanted to call you attention to this problem. --50.141.33.7 (talk) 06:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Narita really a hub
I question if NRT qualifies as a hub anymore- there are only 2 westbound (non-US) destinations now for United at NRT: Seoul and Singapore. Every other flight is obviously going to an existing one in the United States.

User:crescent22 (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 one external links on United 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/20111010103654/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087 to http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110613091936/http://www.united.com/speech/detail/0,6862,53282,00.html to https://www.united.com/speech/detail/0,6862,53282,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110613091646/http://www.united.com/press/detail/0,7056,61241,00.html to https://www.united.com/press/detail/0,7056,61241,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120212142109/http://www.united.com/press/detail/0,7056,69262,00.html to https://www.united.com/press/detail/0,7056,69262,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150530012000/http://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-delivers-united-airlines-first-153700208.html;_ylt=A2KJ3Cc.N2FQSXwAuH7QtDMD to http://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-delivers-united-airlines-first-153700208.html;_ylt=A2KJ3Cc.N2FQSXwAuH7QtDMD
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110909234316/http://www.united.com/page/article/0,6867,1407,00.html to https://www.united.com/page/article/0,6867,1407,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110629042707/http://finance.yahoo.com/news/United-Airlines-to-Retain-prnews-2471080087.html?x=0&.v=1 to http://finance.yahoo.com/news/United-Airlines-to-Retain-prnews-2471080087.html?x=0&.v=1

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 21:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on United 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/20110306114029/http://finance.yahoo.com:80/news/United-Airlines-to-Retain-prnews-2471080087.html?x=0&.v=1 to http://articles.cnn.com/2000-08-26/us/united.agreement_1_pilots-union-air-line-pilots-association-alpa?_s=PM:US
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110306114029/http://finance.yahoo.com:80/news/United-Airlines-to-Retain-prnews-2471080087.html?x=0&.v=1 to http://finance.yahoo.com/news/United-Airlines-to-Retain-prnews-2471080087.html?x=0&.v=1

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 03:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)