Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines/Archive 1

Why this project
I started this project when I found out that there were several editors going in opposite directions with airline articles. I see this project as a way to focus these efforts in one direction. It should also help move the quality of airline articles up a bit.

I suspect that we may be able to generate some infoboxes to display some of the common information and provide a common feel to all articles while at the same time not making every article look the same as every other airline article. Vegaswikian


 * I noticed the differences in how people were going with the Code Data section versus the Airline Codes template. For the moment I'll hold off on further cdoe-related edits until a decision is made on this. Hawaiian717 07:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Should we add a subpage for Code data discussions? Vegaswikian 08:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's not a bad idea. That way people can outline their ideas on why they think each method is better and a decision is made. Hawaiian717 05:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines/Codes contains a summary of what I think exists today along with advantages and disadvantages for each. Time to move this discussion over there.  Vegaswikian 20:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I created an Airline infobox with some summary info that all airline articles should have. I put a sample on the United Airlines article. Feel free to comment, make changes, get rid of it if you think it sucks, etc. Dbinder 19:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I like the infobox idea. Hawaiian717 07:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I added a section and copied in the UA box that Bbinder suggested. It's at WikiProject Airlines/Infobox discussion on that talk page.  Thanks.  Vegaswikian 19:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Has some sort of decision been made on infoboxes, as they seem to be appearing in a range of articles (but only of major airlines as far as I can tell)? As I said in my comments on codes, I find the boxes intrusive as they destroy the flow and layout of the article they accompany, as the article has to be squeezed around it (surely we want people to concentrate on the article, rather than the infobox?) and it also relegates photo display away down the page. Most of the information is already covered (or should be) in the article anyway, so what is the added value of the infobox? Could it be only for people with short attention spans, so they don't need to read the article? then why have an article ..... Ardfern 23:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * re above comments - see Air Tindi - I rest my case. Ardfern 00:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Destinations or Services?
Perhaps I'm wrong, but its my understanding that airlines serve destinations - i.e. the list of places that the airline flies to is a list of *Destinations*, not "Services"? I know it seems rather trivial, but airlines provide a service, they don't fly to a service. I ask this because I notice that some "Destination" lists are being renamed "Service" lists, and to me anyway, it just does not make any sense at all. I've corrected several, but I notice my edits are being undone at the next available opportunity with the user stating that they are being made "consistent". But yet, the large and long standing airline articles, plus those with completely separate Destination articles, don't follow this "consistency". Can someone shed some light on it? --Ayrshire--77 10:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with you and in looking at several airline articles I have not found support for calling destinations services. Once a few more editors sign on to this project, just add your name to the participants, we can move to a formal guideline on how to structure articles.  At least after some discussion here.  Trying to resolve this issue as individuals is difficult, I did not know other editors were having the same problem that I was.  Vegaswikian 17:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * When you go to a ticket counter to check in, they ask "What is your final destination today".  While it is difficult to check all airlines, I have looked at several of their websites.  I have not found any support for using the term services to describe a location that an airline flys to.  Air France on their web site lists the places they fly to as destinations when you try and book a flight.  America West lists services as things that they offer, not cities they fly to.  American Airlines in their press releases announces new "service routes" and in the details list the city pairs as "Origin City" and "Destination City".  So maybe that is the clue, service is provided between a pair of cities, but where you fly to is called the destination.  I currently work at an airport and have not had anyone ask me about a destination using any other term or phrase.  I have also checked with the people who work at the airport information desks and they also have not heard of anyone using services when asking about destinations.  On wiki, Amtrak uses Termini, VIA Rail "continues to operate transcontinental service" but does not list stops or destinations.  Hokkaido Railway Company "operates intercity rail services" ut does not use this term about destinations, instead listing lines and stations.  Rail transport in Great Britain lists stations.  It also states "Passenger train services in the UK are, in the main, structured on the basis of regional franchises", again with no mention of destinations or stations.  Rail transport in India uses service only in the phrase "The only steam engines still in service" and no use of destination. Vegaswikian 18:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I had been advocating the use of services rather than destinations as it allows the differentiation between scheduled, charter, cargo, passenger (etc) services. It is used in this way by Flight International. However, Flight International also uses destinations, but importantly differentiates that they are eg domestic scheduled destinations, international scheduled destinations, international charter destinations etc. If destinations was used in this way it would be acceptable - airlines fly different types of services to destinations. Perhaps a more important question is the time referencing of destinations served - very few destinations articles have any time references - ie at January 2005, or effective Spring 2005 or whatever - otherwise the reader has no idea if destination information is valid. Time referencing should be in all articles. Thoughts? Ardfern 23:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Time references would be nice and this is kind of provided by the last updated information at the bottom of the page. So one could say that the information was correct as of the last updated date.  That's kind of like the copyright date of an encylopedia in my mind.  I think there is agreement to include additional information on charter or cargo or other services that an airline offers.  Vegaswikian 03:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * In my view Services and Destinations are different things and not interchangeable. Services might be Passenger, Freight, Charter, Wet Lease, Dry Lease, Low cost, Full Service, Premium, Executive, Helicopter, Haj Pilgrimage and no doubt others. To define an aircraft operator both services and destinations need to be specified. Treesmill 16:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I added most of your list to Structure on the project page. Maybe a little overkill, but it does expand the types of information editors could consider adding. Vegaswikian 18:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Frequent Flyer Templates
I think all such templates should be deleted and/or listified. They are unnecessary and just clutter up pages. I put a tfd on the Asiamiles one, and two people opposed it. Does anyone disagree with me? If every program has such a template some airlines could have 20 or more templates on their pages. Dbinder 15:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. When I first saw it I was not aware it was airline related.  It has not gotten much notice, maybe due to its name.  Other participants here should take a look at this and enter their opinions on that vote. Vegaswikian 18:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess we need to say something more about templates on the project page. I'll do a first pass, feel free to improve it once I get something there.  Vegaswikian 18:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * They just closed the discussion and kept the template, despite the 3-2 vote in favor of deletion. Dbinder 14:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the vote was 4-2 since the nomination counts as a vote. I think we need to take a position on this on the project page and provide a guideline to keep the pages from becoming cluttered.  Then we can use what the concensus of the project to cleanup up articles to reflect the intent of the project's guidance.  Someone want to give this a first pass? Vegaswikian 19:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Improvement drive
The article on Transportation is currently nominated on This week's improvement drive. Vote for Transportation there.--Fenice 09:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:AirlineProject
I've just created a project notice AirlineProject which can be placed on the talk page of each airline. This will advertise this project and perhaps bring more people into the fold. Trevor MacInnis 21:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I dropped that into several airline talk pages. Will see what happens.  Vegaswikian 00:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Master destinations list
One problem I have had in listing destinations is getting all of the data, like the airport name. While this may not sound like a good idea, would it be helpful to create a list of all commerical destinations? By doing this, all destinations only need to be looked up and formatted once. It would also list multiple airports so an editor would not they need to choose the correct one and not guess wrong that there is only one. It would then be a simple cut and paste to add a destination to an airline article. A side effect would be to have a single list of all commerical destinations. That would be encylopedic! Vegaswikian 04:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Alliances
Should we include airline alliance pages in the project? They are directly related to airline info (and there's only 4 pages - one for each and then an "airline alliance" general page). Dbinder 14:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I would say yes. They are a nav aid for airline articles.  I'd expand this to any airline nav aid templates or maybe any airline related templates.  Vegaswikian 18:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Also in regards to alliances, someone should create a oneworld destinations article, similar to the Skyteam destinations and Star Alliance Destinations articles. I created the first two, but I really don't feel like doing oneworld, since it was a pain in the ass. You have to compile the information from the member carriers, and then look at the alliance's timetable to get all the destinations from regional carriers (American Eagle, LanPeru, etc.) Dbinder 21:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well it could be listed in the articles needed section. Would this be easier to create if we built the article about Airline destinations that included all destinations?  If you had that you could copy it over, add a unique character to every destination from a partner and then just delete everything that was not a listed.  But let me ask a question.  Are those articles really maintainable?  Given the number of airlines, I wonder if it will simply be too difficult to maintain.  Vegaswikian 21:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Using a master list would probably be best. As for maintainability, I don't see too much of a problem. The vast majority of airports are served by at least two airlines, so if someone ends service to a destination, it's unlikely to impact the overall list. The only major changes will be upon the entrance of a new airline. Dbinder 21:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm still thinking about this list. It might make sense to keep old destinations in the list so that it would show all airports that ever had service.  I'm not convinced this is a good idea.  The biggest advantage is it would reduce the number of updates.  The disadvantage is that you would not know which airport had current service without looking at the airport's article.  Another reason to keep the old ones is that if an airport actually lost service and later regained it, the format that was used in the past would be available and not need to be researched.  Vegaswikian 05:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Fleet Data
I noticed that fleet data format is wildly inconsistent between carriers. I liked the format on the United Airlines article and tweaked it a little. I also created a template that could be used for fleets, although it would require one copy of the template for each model, which we were hoping to avoid. Both types of entry are on the United article. They look identical unless you actually look at the page source. Let me know what you think. We don't necessary have to go with this design, but we should come up with some kind of uniform setup. Dbinder 19:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I lean towards tables to display tabular data.  No matter what we do, it would be nice to get to some common elements being displayed.  Maybe we need to list all of the current content, decide what should be retained in a common format and then decide how to display it, table, template, other.  I'd suggest moving this discussion over to /Fleet and then just bring the results back here.  Vegaswikian 20:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Golich17 17:00, 10 October 2006
 * I personally like the look on the Northwest Airlines page as well as the rest of the SkyTeam airlines. I have managed to incorporate all of the SkyTeam airlines with the same fleet tables as well as the same color for the column headings as light blue (similar to the SkyTeam box located on the bottom of the page).  I have recently began to incorporate all of the US airlines the same way.  I also do like the United Layout, but their is no simplicity whatsoever when using that layout, which the Northwest Airlines layout does have.  I think we should color code the layouts according to their alliance table color, which I have also managed to change, and leave non-alligned airlines with a simple white heading.

Helicopter Airlines
Query. Are we classing companies that run standard scheduled flights but using helicopters instead of fixed wing planes as airlines? I ask because the query came up when I asked why HeliJet wasn't in the Template:Airlines of Canada. HeliJet is listed in the airline categories as are other such operators like HeliHongKong and Copterline. I'm not talking about all the little charter companies, but actual scheduled helicopter passenger services just like planes. Also prompted by HeliJet being removed from the List of airlines Ben W Bell 13:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know why anyone would not consider them as an airline. My first flight on an airline like this was in 1976 and it was on the same ticket as the rest of my flight on fixed wing aircraft.  It also does not matter if they are scheduled or charter.  Maybe the question to ask is to they have an IATA or ICAO code, which Helijet does.  If yes then there should be no question about including them. Also from the airline article "An airline is an organization providing aviation services".  That clearly says copters to me.  Vegaswikian 20:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Joining
May I join this project? I have some ideas on how to help tidy up the Airlines sections of the paedia. Ben W Bell 07:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure. There is a section called "Participants" on the projects main page. Just put your signature there. Nothing required of you, just read the related talk and edit whatever you want. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 13:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Airline Templates
I'm a fan of the current Template Template:Airlines of the United Kingdom and feel that this sort of template should be rolled out across the Airlines pages for the different countries. I find it very useful and (as a not too relevant bonus) asthetically pleasing. Ben W Bell 07:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't really see a use for a nav template for airlines in one country. This is already covered in the category by country list.  I would hate to see that list for the US airlines.  Vegaswikian 22:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I confess that it would be absolutely hideous for the US, but it exists for the United Kingdom and for Canada and I think it is good and very useful, however I shall bow to the majority. Ben W Bell 06:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

companies vs airlines
Category:Airline companies of the United States is different then most other categories that are of the form Category:Airlines of Canada. I think that Category:Airlines of the United States should be created and the airlines in the current list moved over to the new category. When that is done, the current category should change by adjusting the categories it is in. Comments? Vegaswikian 05:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Completed. Vegaswikian 20:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikiwings award
Hi all, just thought I'd send a heads up that us 'pedians over at WikiProject Aircraft have created the wikiwings award. I figured people here might be interested in awarding them too. I've copied the blurb that describes the award below:

The wikiwings are styled after military flight wings, and awarded to anyone who makes extensive, high-quality, or generally valued contributions to the area of aviation on wikipedia. They awarded by anyone, to anyone, in a barnstar-like fashion.

The wikiwings award is styled after Rlandmann's wikiwings award, and were officially adopted by WikiProject Aircraft on October 29, 2005.

Incidents and Accidents
Should there be a guideline for this type of data? Most airlines don't have this data and other seem to list the most trival incidents. Also, for american carriers, isn't this already in the FAA (or NTSB) database? Vegaswikian 08:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Just 'cuz its in the NTSB/FAA database doesn't mean it shouldn't be presented here. Also would be useful for non-american airlines. Also, we shouldn't be going to the airlines for this info, we should be going to the relevant national safety organizations which undoubtedly will keep this data and present it in a more unbiased matter. -User:Lommer | talk 02:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. Most users are not aware of the ability to see full NTSB/FAA accident reports, and I think it is useful for users to be able to compare the number of incidents that have been investigated for each airline. -- Bovineone 06:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This could be an extremely valuable resource, as long as the list contains links to, ideally, official reports. It should be a separate article, 'List of Aircraft Accidents' maybe, indexed by year of occurrence. There are already quite a few articles relating to specific accidents, listing these would be a good start. treesmill 09:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Users can find extensive information online and elsewhere about any transport aircraft accident that has occurred in recent decades outside of the pre-1991 Soviet bloc. Each air carrier article should contain an incidents reference link for those who seek that information. Since almost all carriers have experienced catastrophic loss, there's not much utility in listing crashes, especially since the causes of crashes are not always specific to the airline.  A good reason to include a crash in an airline article would be if the crash resulted in the closure of the airline or a major change in the business, i.e., after ValuJet 592 crashed in 1996 the airline reorganized itself and its procedures and began operating as DBA AirTran Airlines. Shouldn't each airline entry be cross-referenced to a general air safety article? -- User:tel5959 21:52, 01 June 06 2006 (PDT).

I don't know where to ask this but I have already tried the Reference desk.
 * South Atlantic SAA Incident May/June 1982
 * I remembered reading somewhere about how a South African Airways airliner was nearly shot down by mistake by a British warship in 1982 over the South Atlantic while the plane was en-route from South Africa to somewhere in South America. The warship was on its way to the Falklands. The article said something about mistaking it with an Argentine Boeing 707 that was supposed to be shadowing the Task Force. I can’t find anything on the internet about this incident. Can anyone on this esteemed panel shed light on this incident? --Jcw69 10:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Focus Cities
The "focus city" concept is rather vague, as some airlines choose to use it and some don't. Should all focus city-like airports be listed under an airline's article, even if most of the flights from that airport are operated by a regional affiliate (e.g. Continental out of FLL and MIA)? Dbinder 19:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure. In that case, wouldn't that airport be a hub or focus city for the regional carrier? Vegaswikian 20:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Vegaswikian; we always treat affiliates as separate airlines.

We also need to clarify what makes a city a "focus city." Dbinder and I have argued about UA at HKG, where two of their US - Southeast Asia flights stop over. Should that be enough to make the airport a focus city? I believe it shouldn't; one or two extra routes does not a focus city make. I understand "focus city" to be more like an unofficial hub. Sekicho 23:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In general it should be a small hub, a mini hub or an airport with a concentration of connecting flights. I suspect that coming up with a specific definition would be difficult.  Number of flights will not work, what matters is if the flights are arranged to allow people to connect to other flights without long waits.  Vegaswikian 00:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If it is only based on the fact that the airline offers connecting flights to non-hub airports, then HKG would be a focus city for United. If there is a minimum number of flights or destinations, then it probably wouldn't. Dbinder 22:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm restarting this discussion since this is becoming a bigger problem. Some editors are now basing the classification on the number of flights from an airport or the number of destinations or classification by another term such as 'key city'. I do not see these points qualifying as a secondary hub or a focus city. I guess we need to decide to only base this on information at the airlines web site or some other criteria that has received consensus. Vegaswikian 22:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

ICAO airline designator cleanup
I have completed mergeing the two ICAO lists that existed into a single list ICAO airline designator. Links for the A codes still need to be added. Also all of the codes need to be checked to see that the airline is included in a dab article. I also was suprised about the number of airlines that don't have an article, so if someone is looking for a list of airlines that need articles, this would be a good place to look. Vegaswikian 01:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I have made a comment in Talk:Airline call sign that the list of callsigns is out of date and is only a small selection of those allocated - it is in ICAO designator order and is far from complete. Suggest that Airline call sign could link to ICAO airline designator to save listing all the codes and callsigns twice !! MilborneOne 21:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Merging Commuter airline into Regional airline
I have put up a tag proposing to merge the two articles. I thought people at this project may want to comment. You can comment at Talk:Regional airline. -- Adz|talk 11:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Fleet Data revisited
This hasn't been discussed in awhile, and there was never a consensus on it. I'd like to start standardizing that, so how should we go forward? Dbinder 23:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As of now I like the Continental Airlines design. It's easy to maintain but will hopefully stave off complaints of removing too much information since one can simply add notes next to a line. Dbinder 23:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer something like the Delta article uses. Dropping, the A/V and the cargo but adding it the number of seats per class.  You can also add a comments section to allow for anything that is missed.  I'm up in the air about the engines.  That's the type of technical information that some would like to have in a reference document.  Tables seem to unclutter an article so I'd go that way over raw or simply formatted text for information like this.  Vegaswikian 00:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

vfd Notice
I listed Singapore Airlines flight numbers for deletion on WP:NOT grounds. If you have an opinion, vote on it. Dbinder 01:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

IATA airline designator cleanup
I just finished cleaning up this article. All of the codes currently having articles either redirect to the airline or a dab article or to an article that dabs to the airline. Also there are a lot of red links for anyone who wants to reearch and write airline articles.

Should all of the codes that are red be created as a redirect expecting the articles to be created? Vegaswikian 22:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project
Hi, I'm a member of the Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's see... I'll begin this by making a table for us to fill in. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 23:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's great! I have copied the table here. You are free to add entries in this table (talk page) or on the 1.0 page I linked. Keep the suggestions coming. Thanks again! Gflores Talk 00:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Airlines not included
It is my understanding that this project covers all airlines since we are working to improve the quality of all articles that are airline related. I have removed that change and broght the discussion over here. The airline that one editor listed was Singapore Airlines. I don't see how removing one airline from the project can improve quality of the encylopedia as a whole. I strongly feel if we are going to support an action like that, then we will be creating a large problem. In any case, doing something like that requires a discussion here since it is a major change to the project. It is not a minor change in my mind. It seems to be an effort to avoid the consensus process. Vegaswikian 19:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Vegas, ok I agree. I had my reasons, which I wrote in the discussion page for WikiProject Airports. If you got a better idea, I'm listening. Elektrik Blue 82 21:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Order of continents on destination lists
Please see the destinations page. Dbinder 23:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization
A group of editors proposed that all company names that are normally non-capitalized, such as oneworld, should be written with an initial capital letter (i.e. Oneworld). This results in incorrect capitalization for a number of businesses. If you have an opinion on the issue, please add to the commentary at the discussion page. Although one editor declared the vote closed, the matter is still open to discussion. Dbinder 21:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Insider transactions
I would like to post the 'insider' stock transactions for Air Canada from this site: http://acpilot.blogspot.com/2005/12/ace-insider-holdings-and-transactions.html. How do I do this without being accused of posting spam. I can assure you the information is accurate and up to date. I can a) post a link to the site or b) Put the image and text on a 'Insider' header. What is the preferred method? DSatYVR 13 March 2006

Hubs
Do we have a standard for deciding what is a hub? Should we go with the airports that function as hubs or what the airline says are actually hubs? The American Airlines article has been getting a lot of back-and-forth editing over what its hubs are. AA says its hubs are DFW, O'Hare, St. Louis, Miami, LaGuardia, Kennedy, and Boston. However, functionally, Kennedy and Boston wouldn't be included as hubs, but San Juan would. Which should be the standard? I say just go with what the airline says. Dbinder 19:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC) Why don't we just get rid of this whole "hub" and "focus city" thing entirely? I mean, it's clear that the concepts are interpreted differently by different people. There's also so much of a gap between airlines. I'll agree that in American's case LGA and BOS are not really comparable to DFW or MIA. But wouldn't it be better to just explain the situation without using loaded buzzwords? - Sekicho 22:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought we have been using the airline's own definition. Vegaswikian 20:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This link shows San Juan as a hub. I could not find a list on their site.  I suspect it is there, but well hidden.  Vegaswikian 20:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I was going by their destination map. It says that hub cities are all in caps, but San Juan isn't in caps. Dbinder 10:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * According to AA's 10-K filing for FY 2005, "American operates five hubs: Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW), Chicago O’Hare, Miami, St. Louis and San Juan, Puerto Rico." It also identifies several Eagle-served destinations as "major airports": BOS, JFK, LAX, LGA, and RDU. AA is not the only airline which has seen these disputes. There has been some disagreement as to whether HKG, JFK, PDX, and SAT should be labeled as focus cities for United Airlines for instance. The problem is that focus city is a somewhat nebulous term and WP's own definition ("several destinations other than its hubs") is rather loose. -choster 22:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. treesmill 00:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think hubs should be listed. Focus cities maybe yes, maybe no.  However we need to have a sound source to acquire and update this information.  Vegaswikian 00:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'd say hubs are increasingly becoming an alliance-by-alliance thing rather than an airline-by-airline thing. For instance, I've flown NRT-DFW on AA several times in the past year, and most of the people on board are not O&D from Tokyo; they're connecting to JAL flights to other points in Asia. (I'd say half of the economy passengers on that route are Vietnamese.) NRT is clearly not an AA hub, but it functions like one. Then you have places like the NW "hub" at AMS which would hardly count as a focus city but for all the code-sharing with KLM.

Anyway, one possible definition is to make the connecting points in the network "hubs," and major O&D destinations "focus cities." In AA's case, this would make JFK/SJU hubs, but BOS/LAX/LGA would be focus cities. For UA, NRT would be a hub, there wouldn't really be any focus cities, and HKG/SAT/SEA would disappear. (Looking at it this way makes me realize how silly UA's route network is these days... clean it up!) - Sekicho 04:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * After thinking about this, could these be more correctly identified as alliance hubs? Vegaswikian 07:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Fleet age
Do we want to start including this piece of information? It changes monthly and appears to be impossible to keep upto date. I just saw this added to Mesa Airlines if anyone wants to see one place where it was added. Vegaswikian 20:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Destinations
I am a bit confused over what to do with airline destination lists. I read under format of airline article section that any airline with over ten destinations could have its own page for destinations, so I created a new page for the destinations of Flybe which has probably 30 or 40 destinations, however it was deleted and I was told that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Please can you give me some info on this. User:Flymeoutofhere
 * Recreate the page and tell the person who deleted it that he or she is an idiot. 30-40 destinations is more than enough for a separate page. Dbinder 19:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Some additonal background:
 * User talk:DragonflySixtyseven
 * User talk:Flymeoutofhere
 * User talk:Wangi
 * Personally I don't feel that the destinations needed splitting out of the main Flybe article, however to speedy delete the destination article was not right, and against process. Thanks/wangi 19:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Another "Flight Numbers" Article
Do we want separate articles on each airline's flight numbers? Based on the SQ discussion, I assumed the answer was no. There's now a Qantas Flight Numbers article, which I listed for deletion. If anyone has an opinion, please weigh in. Dbinder 15:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a lot of work, and I'm not sure how useful and encyclopaedic it would be to have complete lists for each article. However, I can see a valid need for selective lists covering significant routes, along with histories of aircraft used, anecdotes and so on. Qantas Route 1 for example, as many Australians (and Kiwis) take this flight for the more or less obligatory OE and the Kangaroo Run has become a part of Antipodean culture. We could also include flight numbers no longer used due to accident. --Jumbo 07:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles named after flight numbers
On a related note to the above, is there a naming standard for articles about non-fatal incidents. Articles such as Qantas Flight 1 and British Airways Flight 9 have titles that suggest they might be about that route/flight number, which is still in use. In fact, both are about particular non-fatal incidents in history. I stumbled across Qantas Flight 1 and attempted to improve the article by ordering the available information so that the general info came first, followed by info about the 1999 crash, and was quickly reverted by Jumbo as the article is named like all other air crash articles. He suggested on the talk page that I come here to discuss how the article should be named or improved. The current naming is fine for major fatal accidents where the flight number was non-notable before the crash, and retired after it (for example Swissair Flight 111), but is wrong for articles where the title suggests it could be about the ongoing service. --Scott Davis Talk 06:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Scott has raised a valid point and in fact it is one that bothered me when I worked on the QF1 article, as I'd taken that flight not long before and to my mind the title is more strongly associated with the route, rather than a non-fatal aircraft accident. However, the existing standard is that crash articles are named after the route number, and there are a lot of crash articles, so it needs discussion. Scott suggested incorporating the year in some way, and this idea makes a lot of sense, as there could be multiple accidents on the one route, and it would more closely identify the article(s) with a disaster rather than a route. However, I can't think of a way to do this easily. --Jumbo 07:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There is an issue here of encylopedic or notable information. At what point does an incident become notable so that it merits an article?  I have raised the issue about how minor an incident should be before it is listed in the body of the airlines article.  I see this as an extension.  On the specific issue of the name, maybe, if this could be a problem, the article should not exist?  If the airline continues to use the flight number, they apparently don't consider the incident notable.  Some flight numbers, like 1, could be an exception.  Vegaswikian 07:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

In this case the airline even continued to use the airframe (after significant repairs). The most notable aspect may well be the cost of the repair. I accept that the info on the incident is worthy of being included in Wikipedia somewhere, but I did not expect it to be the primary focus of an article called Qantas Flight 1, nor did I expect to be reverted for reordering the info already in that article to better focus on the title. --Scott Davis Talk 07:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If this article is nothing more then a restatement of theAustralian Transport Safety Bureau report on the accident, I don't understand why the incident comment in the Quantas article is not all that is needed? Just include the link there.  Vegaswikian 19:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Flag icons in destination lists
A couple users have been adding flag icons next to every country in the airline destination lists. This seems kind of pointless, and the airport project decided to get rid of them. What's the opinion here? Dbinder 09:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * They just clutter up the screens in my opinion and aren't necessary. Ben W Bell 10:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, I've noticed on some of the pages that people did add them, that countries were often incorrect (for example the Hungarian flag for a Polish destination etc.). And the Scotish one when it should be the UK flag, I changed some of these myself but I am just as happy to see them gone as I agree, they are not needed. Dbertman 12:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

How should territories be treated
From what I know, territories right now are to be placed in the "region" (E.G. Puerto Rico would be placed in the Carribbean instead of with the United States).

But I say it should depend on several things, including whether the flight from the airlines' hub country to the country would be considered domestic or international.

E.G. But
 * Any Mainland U.S. to Puerto Rico flight is treated as a domestic flight and does not require a passport (Puerto Rico uses the U.S.' aviation authority)
 * Any flight from Mainland China to Hong Kong is treated as an international flight (Hong Kong even has its own aviation authority)

So while Puerto Rico would either be listed under the United States or the U.S. Territory headings, but Hong Kong can be separate. WhisperToMe 22:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * While I understand the argument that from the perspective of a US carrier, US territories are domestic and from the perspective of a British carrier, UK territories are domestic, etc., this would mean that destination lists for each country's airlines would follow a different format. I support a global standardization, whatever it may be. If we are to list territories under their parent countries, then we should do it with all of them (BVI, New Caledonia, Netherlands Antilles, etc.). I think the current format of giving each territory a separate heading and listing the parent country in parenthesis clarifies the fact that a flight to that territory would be domestic from country X. As for Hong Kong and Macau, we haven't really discussed that yet. Dbinder 22:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, from a perspective of a British carrier British territories are international. In fact British citizens may be needed to show passports in the Cayman Islands, etc. I'm not sure if they are. Also those territories may have their own aviation agencies, etc. WhisperToMe 22:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep - On the Emirates website and I did a search -

"1. If born in Cayman Islands:  Passport or proof of citizenship required.

Visa not required.

2. If born outside Cayman Islands: Passport required. Also accepted: Birth Certificate or Naturalization Certificate provided: - accompanied by official photo ID such as driver's licence (children under 18 years old do not have to present    separate photo ID); and - return or onward ticket showing that passenger will leave Cayman Isl. within 6 months for United Kingdom, its domains, territories, colonies or dependencies. Exemption: persons of Cayman status. Documents must be valid at least beyond period of intended stay.

If passport is endorsed British Citizen  or  British Overseas Territories Citizen : visa not required for a stay of 30 days. Extension up to a max. stay of 6 months is possible.

Visitor must hold: - ticket and other documents required for next destination; and - sufficient funds.

Entry may be refused, if not complying with requirements regarding general appearance, clothing and behaviour. "

The Cayman Islands, aviation-wise, is separate from the UK. WhisperToMe 00:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

(Reposting what I posted to DBinder's page)

In fact, British Territories are considered international destinations according to British carriers. I did a search for a British person coming to the Cayman Islands using this tool: http://www.emirates.com/TravellerInformation/before_fly/visas/visainformation/timatic_visa/visa.asp

Anyone who wasn't born in the Cayman Islands requires a passport.

The Cayman Islands has more self-autonomy than Puerto Rico and therefore should be treated differently. Cayman Airways is registered as a Cayman Islands air carrier while all Puerto Rico-based air carriers are registered as United States air carriers. This picture of a Prinair plane reveals that it is U.S. registered (the "N" stands for the United States) WhisperToMe 00:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyways, what I want - in the case of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam, is for them to be listed under "United States" OR "U.S. territories" when compiling destinations lists, since those territories use United States registration and customs.

In the case of overseas British territories, they have their own aviation authorities, own customs and visas, etc. WhisperToMe 00:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Putting all of what you suggest under the US would make any list useless from a geographical standpoint. Airline destinations will be the standard that we all should be using to be uniform.  Right now, everyone appears to be OK with the layout in that article.  The biggest issue remaining is does the order varry based on where the airline is.  Vegaswikian 02:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How would that make it useless? The Caribbean is technically North America (even though Guam isn't) - All I am suggesting is Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, and Guam. That's IT! - I obviously differentiate between those territories and territories like the Caymans (which I say should remain separate). It is wrong to keep Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, and Guam separate from the "United States" since that is implying that they are "separate from the United States" (in terms of Aviation bodies, etc) when they clearly aren't.

Also, if you throw in an "Excluding U.S. territories", people will know where to look (United States) WhisperToMe 03:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that from a practical standpoint, most people don't consider Guam to be in North America. They would say it's a Pacific island. Likewise, people would label the USVI as Caribbean. You can argue for Puerto Rico being listed with the remainder of the US, since it has somewhat closer ties with the mainland and a significant group of people pushing for statehood. The same is not true with Guam and the Virgin Islands. Hawaii is generally considered North America because it's a state. Also, the Northern Mariana Islands are a territory of the United States, but US citizens do need a passport to go there, so it wouldn't be listed under the US. From the standpoint of someone who's not familiar with the politics of that region (i.e. most people who aren't from the US) the difference would be somewhat confusing. It is likely that other editors would see that Guam was missing from the Pacific Islands section and add it in redundantly. The same could happen with the Virgin Islands in the Caribbean. Dbinder (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Help
Hi guys! we are translating article LAPA flight 3142 from Spanish into English and we're having a hard time finding some word in English. Could someone with technical knowledge give us a hand with the technical stuff? Please, take a look at the questions in Talk:LAPA flight 3142/Translation, and maybe keep it in your watchlist for future dubts. Thanks a bunch. Mariano (t/c) 10:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Current Fleet
I noticed that airlines have different formats for thier fleets. Some have a simple unorder list, others have a chart. Some have included aircraft on order (and not in service) as part of the fleet and others create separate sections for planes on order. I suggest a standardized format be implemented.

My recommendation would be to use a chart as follows:

Variations could include a fourth column for additional information

---mnw2000
 * See Fleet data and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines/Fleet for previous discussions. Vegaswikian 05:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I know this has been discussed, but I've been ruminating on the idea for a couple weeks. First I'm partial to the new United Fleet chart I took the old one and tabelized the thing to make it make sense from a layout standpoint.  I've been thinking of making a template to drive the fleet charts, ideally with the ability to support the complexity of the UAL chart, but downgrade gracefully when an airline doesn't need/use the features of the chart...  I'm thinking of making a few inquiries to the template gurus because I'm a bit lost on the matter..  Another thing I'd like the fleet charts to drive is an "operators" and "on order" page for the aircraft.  I know there have been attempts at it before, but they're always quickly out of date or incomplete.  Running these lists via the templates would improve things. Two questions:


 * 1) What do you think of the United Fleet Chart?
 * 2) What do you think of having a standard template?

—Cliffb 03:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't like the United Fleet chart because it is so busy. Having said that, it probably does cover all of the data that is likely required.  So while I may not like it, it may be a good solution.  It does provide a format to cover just about all of the configurations and options that the airlines use.
 * I do understand.. I'm going to play with it and see if there are some line widths that can be added to improve readability, and maybe reduce the perceived busyiness.. —Cliffb 05:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I really don't like the sort order. My opinion is that it should be listed by aircraft size.  This seems to be a matter of pride and importance with the airlines and passengers.  Another option would be by aircraft age since the newer ones are again more important.  Vegaswikian 05:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but if I were to think of Northwest, their most unique asset right now is their owned DC-9 Fleet that they've kept up.. With size it gets a bit harder to see the split with the manufacturer, which is why I like the alphabetical sort. (Although there is the DC-9/MD-88/Boeing 717 issue, which is just an issue overall.)  Also with aircraft age the issue gets to be is it the age when the aircraft was introduced, or delivered?  It could get a bit trickier there as well.  —Cliffb 05:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I dont like the United table far to much data, I dont think anybody wanting to know seat configuration etc would check the airline website and not trust what they read in wikipedia. I thing a simpler solution like mnw2000 above would be the answer. If we want to include additional info then it should be in a separate heading like 'trivia'. Anybody know why the Virgin Atlantic Airways fleet listing is completely over the top, including a list of previous aircraft and where they are now! would want to start that for every airliner! MilborneOne 12:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles for frequent flyer award destinations
See Articles for deletion/Skywards destinations which is up for deletion. This is an awards program and not an alliance. Vote if you have any interest in this. Vegaswikian 07:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

American Falcon
Article American Falcon is a big mess; I would like to ask you guys to take a look at it. Please, also check this older but more extensive version. Thanks a lot, Mariano (t/c) 12:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have tidied some of the formatting of the page up. Dbertman 13:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I went back to an older version, did a revert and pulled some of the new relevant info forward.. hopefully I wasn't too bold.. —Cliffb 03:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

FedEx Express (Destinations)
I have just stumbled upon what looks to be the much forgotten article for FedEx Express, the air transport side of the Fedex corporation. The page seems to be lacking overall, but what caught my eye the most was the destinations list. It is many times shorter than the fleet list, and is missing a good ammount of destinations (I noticed that all of my "home airports" are missing from the list, so that's probably some indication of the completeness of the article.)   I am not entirely familiar with the ways and standards of this wikiproject (having spent most of my time at WP:Aircraft, and WP:Airports) so, it would be nice if someone could take a look at the page, and possibly revise or remove that destinations list. Thanks. --KPWM_Spotter 00:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how the divisions of FedEx are arranged, but it does appear from the main article that this is the airline portion. If that's the case, then some cleanup needs to be done.  The fleet should only be in one article and not both.  As to the destinations, do we really need to list 300+ destinations for a cargo airline?  I wonder if the list would be maintainable.  I say this because I suspect that changes in cargo destinations are not well announced so keeping that data updated might be a problem.  Your point about it being out of date may suppport this.  I'd say try cleaning up the articles and getting all of the airline related stuff into the one article, assuming this is the correct structure of the company.  I'll try and at least move these all into one category so they are grouped together.  Vegaswikian 02:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems that everything that is in the airline page could be under the main FedEx page. FedEx ground also links to a seperate page, but once again, it is mainly duplicate information, as well as some info about the company it was created from. I suggest an expansion of the airline page, as well as a removal of the destinations section, as it could be nearly infinite (that, or create a page of it's own if solid information can be found for actual destinations) With the expansion of the page, it should try to contain information relative to only the airline's information, while the main corporate page should be weeded of airline information. In a related move, I think the FedEx ground article should be renamed to be "Roadway Express" the company which ground was founded off of, and that currently redirects there. There is very little there specific to fedex ground to start with. I know that this part about the ground portion isn't related to WP:Airlines exactly, but I don't know of annother wiki group that I could easily go to for an opinion. If there are no objections, I will start these changes tomorrow morning. --KPWM_Spotter 03:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As I understand policy, when a company changes names you use the new name and not the old. Vegaswikian 04:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

AirTran_Airways
Comments about listing the top 10 destinations by any type of measurement in destinations? Somehow this looks more like information for wikitravel then information for wikipedia. Vegaswikian 06:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Joined
I joined this WikiProject. I'm going to work on airline-related articles on and off. -- Big  top  17:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Customer opinion sites
I've just posted a concern about linking to customer opinion websites on WP:WPSPAM: What does everyone think about linking to websites which contain customer opinions?

For example consider http://www.airlinequality.com/ which contains passenger opinions on airlines ([ all links]). I beleive such a site doesn't meet any of WP:ELs "when to link" guidelines (for #4 it's hard to consider it neutral & accurate) and hits against some of the recommendations on when not to link: I wonder if there's a parallel here with the WP:BLP policy which is applied to biographies of living people... And has recently spawned a Articles about ongoing enterprises proposal? Your comments welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. Thanks/wangi 21:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2: "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Reliable sources"
 * 9: "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself."

Updated Air Canada Page
The Air Canada page has been re organised into the catagories on the main page. It still requires some cleanup, new information and organization. What are your opinions on further developing this page, possibly to the point of using it as a template for all other pages? (Greenboxed 20:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC))
 * I really like it.. Although I think the fleet boxes should mirror those on United Air Lines —Cliffb 22:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Great! I simply used the project outline and moved the information into the relevent order! Thanks for the suggestion! (Greenboxed 14:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC))

United Airlines
Thank you, I saw you worked on United's page. As an employee I must say; looks way better!

United Airlines is currently up as a good article nominee - Blood red sandman 10:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Silverjet
I just created this page after seeing its website, and I added your project's stub template to the bottom. I'm not sure if this is the right place to put a request, but if anyone has any information on the airline it would be great if you could add it. NcSchu 15:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Midway Alliance
Can someone look at Midway Alliance and see what you think? Vegaswikian 06:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing, and I've nominated it for deletion. It's a neologism for a two-airline codesharing agreement. FCYTravis 18:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Airline destinations AfD
Airline destinations is proposed for deletion. If interested, drop in on the discussion. Vegaswikian 06:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Fate of the BA Connect article following sale to flybe
Today I have posted a comment on the BA Connect Talk Page to ensure that following the sale of the airline to flybe we do not lose the histroical information about the airline form its formation as BA Citiexpress (following the purchase of BRAL by BA who combined it with Brymon and BA UK Regional operations). It may have only been in existence for a few years, however the article details an important evolution of the regional operations by British Airways.

My aim of provoking this discussion is to prevent an hasty deletions/edits that lose this historical reference data. Over to you.... Stewart 11:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Affinity Programs
Another user brought to my attention that the main page says affinity programs should have their own page if they are "large or well known". In practice, only a few such articles have been kept, so the guideline should be reworded to reflect this. I don't know what the wording should be, but I think that only the multi-airline programs (Miles & More, Asia Miles, etc.) and a few other particularly notable ones (AAdvantage - the first, Aeroplan - a subsidiary with ties to other companies than just Air Canada, etc.) should be kept. DB (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would have to strongly disagree with the blanket assertion that ALL non-multi airline frequent flyer programs lack notability to remain on Wikipedia. There are many single-airline programs known worldwide by millions of people. The fact that only a few of these articles exist may well be attributed to the fact that this topic has not yet been fully documented, rather than users going around deleting them, as Wiki is a work in progress. Finally, according to WP:DELETE and WP:NOTE, single-airline FF articles that (1) do not violate WP:NOT; (2) are of "encyclopdic quality"; (3) NPOV; and (4) follow wiki copyright policy; should be allowed to exist as they meet the rules of "notability, importance, or significance" set out by the wiki community. Parnell88 01:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If the consensus is to keep them, then they will be kept. The SkyMiles, OnePass, Mileage Plus, Executive Club, SKYPASS, and some other articles were all merged and/or redirected into their respective airline articles. They are not notable in themselves. Except for members and people knowledgeable in the industry, most people probably haven't heard of a lot of these programs. Cathay Pacific is known for excellent service, but it is far from the world's largest airline, and the Marco Polo Club is not a huge program. In fact, all of the programs I listed, with the exception of SKYPASS, are larger than the Marco Polo Club. I am not saying all the information should be removed altogether, but that the relevant info should be merged into the airline article, and the page should redirect to the airline. DB (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: while the current discussion is about Cathay, my comments apply to all articles on FF programs. DB (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Incidents and Accidents 2
Noticed a trend for contributers to add none notable incidents to airline pages. Most of these are what I call "just a bad day at the office" stuff like engine fires. Just wanted to ensure that my understanding of the agreed criteria was that any incident or accident should be verifiable and sourced and be notable (persons injured or killed, hull loss, or had an effect on the industry, regulations or procedures).MilborneOne 12:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * From the project page, 'Major incidents or ones with fatalities over the airline's history'. So it is a judgement about what is major.  Clearly ones with fatalities are from the wording on the project page.  An engine blowout would not be in my opinion. Something like landing on a taxiway might be.  If you elect to make changes, you can point back to the project page for what is considered acceptable. Vegaswikian 19:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Vegaswikian, I dont think there is any dispute - just contributers who are not aware.MilborneOne 21:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Flags in the infobox
I've noticed a couple of editors adding flags to the infoboxes of airline articles recently - this is against common practice and doesn't actually add anything at all to the article or infobox. Plus they're not using the correct flagicon template...

If this is actually people think is a worthwhile addition then it should get consensus here first.

Thanks/wangi 18:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Has anyone else noticed that the image servers are geting slower again? Could all of these flag images be part of the problem?  Vegaswikian 19:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought there was a discussion about flags in airline articles long ago and the decision was to keep them out. I say leave them in the alliance articles, since the whole point of an alliance is multinational airline cooperation, and the flags show at-a-glance the participating countries. In individual airline articles, though, anyone with half a brain can tell what country the carrier is from without looking at the flag. DB (talk) 05:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to support DB - no flags please(except as above).MilborneOne 12:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)