Template talk:Airline holding companies of the United States

Simplification
This template has gotten out of hand. It had entries for companies that don't have articles, just links to the airlines they control. It included private equity firms that happened to have significant/controlling stakes in airlines but aren't airline holding companies per se. It included FedEx and UPS as airline holding companies. It had pictures with captions. It had four embedded sub-templates. It had information detailing the evolution of defunct companies. It wasn't a navbox, it was an article (an unsourced one, at that) masquerading as a template.

WP:NAVBOX states:

A navigation template, navbox or topicbox is a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles.

This had gotten way beyond that. I've rebuilt it as a simple navbox with links to airline holding companies. Anything more than that, such as what airlines are held by the holding company, or the evolution of now-defunct holding companies, belongs on the article page, not in a navigation template. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * An IP editor apparently doesn't like the change and considers it vandalism, so I've opened up a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Per the consensus from the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines, I have reverted this again to the simplified version. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus = Ideally, achieving consensus requires serious treatment of every group member's considered opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.51.63 (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This Template is SOOOOO boring now
A Consensus of Three, Tres, Trois 3 ... Some Concensus, Tyranny of the Minority.

VANDALISM at WIKI continious by some of the Vegan island jerks and THE ABOVE unfortunately —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.128.29.40 (talk) 04:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Style
What's with all the quotation marks in the template? Is something specific being quoted? If so, what? If not, are these just "scare" quotes? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Scope
A discussion of the scope of this template is needed. When I recently simplified it, I trimmed it down to just airline holding companies that actually have articles on Wikipedia. There is certainly room for growth in this area, for example Hawaiian Holdings could have it's own article, but since it didn't I excluded it (it was later added as a link to a section on the Hawaiian Airlines article). However, whether Hawaiian Holdings is notable enough on its own to have its own article is probably open for debate. If not, the question arises of wether or not it should still be listed as a link to the airline article. Another example would be Gavarnie Holding, which could link to Island Air.

I also specifically excluded companies who are not airline holding companies, but have investments in airlines. Private equity firms in particular. MatlinPatterson and TPG Capital come to mind as examples. These companies aren't airline holding companies; they happen to have investments in them. In both cases, we already have more appropriate links to the firms they invest in that are airline holding companies (Global Aviation Holdings and Midwest Air Group, respectively). Readers can follow the links to the holding companies themselves, and from those articles determine more about the ownership history.

In addition, the Trans World Airlines article does not appear to substantiate the implication that an entity called "Icahn & Co." controlled TWA. The link goes to Carl Icahn, which is about a person, not a company at all. During the Icahn era, was there in fact a holding company that controlled TWA? The TWA article seems to imply that Icahn controlled TWA directly, alongside other firms like Karabu.

I think all this also relates to what the title displayed at the top of the template should be. On the basis of my initial simplification, I gave it the title "Airline holding companies of the United States", which to me clearly delimits the scope of the template and excludes the addition of private equity firms and the like. The current title "Firms with IATA coded certificated air carrier business holdings or subsidiaries" certainly expands that scope, but the wording seems rather obtuse. If nothing else, can we at least agree not to put every third word in quotation marks?

To sum up: Do we include in this template:
 * Private equity firms (or other companies) that aren't directly airline holding companies, but have investments in them?
 * Especially when the holding company itself has it's own article?
 * Holding companies that don't have articles?
 * Do we link them to article the airline they control?
 * A link to the article about Carl Icahn?

-- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Just had a go at trying to edit List of airline holding companies which has similar problems. I think the template should have all airline holding companies listed (article or not) but should exclude parent companies and investment companies that are clearly not holding companies for a number of airlines which is what you would expect from the term. I have changed the title this is the Airline holding companies of the United States template and the title should not be different. Also Carl Icahn appears to be an individual not a holding company so should be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Question
Like the TV Show Jeopardy!32.176.131.247 (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

What is a Firm? GCH 32.176.131.247 (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * but doesnt appear to relate to the template. MilborneOne (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Firm: Corporation, Company, Holding Company, Private Equity, etc. 32.176.131.247 (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Is a Firm a Holding Company?
Caught in a Trap and I Can't Back Out 'Cause I Love You Too Much, Baby

"Not sure what this is about"

Business Acumen do airline Enthusiasts have any? 32.176.186.53 (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what to say about the body, but I can answer the question at the start of this section. Wikitionary can answer the question.  holding company and firm are the definitions in question, and to sum up, a "holding company" is one type of "firm", so the answer to the question is NO. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

WRONG:

Firms Translations = A Business or Company

Holding Company

(business) A company that owns enough voting stock in another firm to control management and operations by influencing or electing its board of directors

(business) A company without significant operations that only holds ownership interests in other companies.

Thus a Holding Company is a type of Firm166.183.178.197 (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thus a Holding Company is

A Business or Company that owns enough voting stock in another Business or Company to control management and operations by influencing or electing its board of directors.

A Business or Company without significant operations that only holds ownership interests in other business or companies.

These businesses or companies, be it the controlling party or the controlled party are both firms. I really do not have the motivation to debate such elemetary dicussions though32.176.205.252 (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC) 32.176.205.252 (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I never said a holding company was not a firm. I said a firm is not a holding company.  I will concede that this is not entirely accurate, as a holding company is one type of firm.  In mathematical terms, "holding company" is a subset of "firm". -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Brown Template
Just checking in to see if this thing is still comparing Lemons - "The fiscially in control Parent Companies," with Oranges - Subsidiaries "which have no fiscal control of their futures."

I recall so many Airlines which were subsidiaries that were making money, only to be sold off in pieces by the chief owning company which could make more from said airlines break up then from selling the subsidiary airline outright.

I can see the less frequent users of WIKI have not figured this out yet and restored the more definitive Brown list that was here with the less definitive and simplistic BLUE list that has been placed here.166.183.116.47 (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion Note
I noticed there was a reasonable edit made. This template is more about aviation business than aviation hobby which a recent editor seems to be interested in. As this template is about aviation business, finance, and commerce, I restored as the depiction of public and private companies helps give insight into the various strengths and weakness, and financial crediblity of the various airline entitities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.59.27.102 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 11 September 2011

Additional Note. Delta Air Lines would be a parent holding type company as they do own Comair... Also Hawaiian is NASDAQ listed so that needs to be addressed by another editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.59.27.102 (talk • contribs) 07.12, 11 September 2011


 * Sorry didnt see these undated and misplaced comment when I made my last edit to the article. Please sign contributions, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The addition of additional information on if an airline is private or public or if it is NYSE or NASDAQ listed is not really relevant and has been challeged. This template is not about aviation business, finance and commerce it is a wikipedia navigation template to help users move between similar articles, it is not an article and doesnt not need the level of detail that has been added which can be found in the related article. Really need a consensus to add this again, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

99.59.27.102 (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC) Not an issue... to the previous editor. This was what I was trying to edit anyway.... and it had already been corrected regarding Hawaiian. This format facilitates navigation around the transparent publically owned companies, and the no so transparent privately owned companies, business, and firms. Such can be helpful for anyone considering investing or working for the airline firms.

There seems to be many juveniles editing and when I see reasonable edit I like to stand up for one.

Also noting the ugly truth of Delta Air Lines and Comair... where does this fit in or do we continue to just ignore it as it does not quite fit the template model???99.59.27.102 (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Concur with MilborneOne that the additional public/private and NYSE/NASDAQ distinctions are too much. In addition, calling other editors "juvenile" may be a violation of WP:CIVIL. The difficulty of fitting in Delta (not a holding company, but does wholly own another airline) suggests that the template with this many sub-divisions is over-complicated. The purpose of this template is to navigate, not to inform. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay as said before - navigating from NYSE to NASDAQ listed airline holdings companies was the goal of the change I implemented. NYSE listed companies seem far more successful in the long term history of the airline industry than NASDAQ listed companies if one navigates through these companies.

IF juvenile WP whatever is offensive that is not a goal. By juvenile I mean simply this applies to those who concentrate on the simplistic airline hobby, and not on commercial aviation and business as seems to be the case of two of the same editors in here which frequent the aviation sector with very frequent edits, one that is not the same, and one that is yet unidentified but occasionally seems to have reasonable edits. Rather than waste additional edits, and being drawn into these editing conflicts of these 3-4 editors I have noted... perhaps I might suggest a new TEMPLATE, dictating these Publically held NASDAQ companies, etc.

However, I think they can more effectively be accomondate in this template. 99.59.27.102 (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Something is malfunctioning with this template
all of the names are running together into one big list of letters....

W H A T is G O I N G on H E R E ? 32.177.222.142 (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What browser and OS? Looks fine for me with Firefox. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No problems for me with Chrome 16, Safari 5, and Firefox 9 on Mac OS X, or with Firefox 3.6 on Linux. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Alaska Air Group AMR Corporation Hawaiian Holdings Global Aviation Holdings Mesa Air Group Republic Airways Holdings Pinnacle Airlines Corp. SkyWest, Inc. Southwest Airlines Co. Trans States Holdings United Continental Holdings US Airways Group

This is what I see on both computers..... on not just this but many other templates 209.183.55.42 (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat. What browser and OS?  Since it is also an issue with other templates, it is something with your setup or a major problem in the template code which needs to be discussed someplace other then here. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)