Jump to content

Talk:Auckland Airport

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opinions

[edit]

Have just made some updates to reflect some changes but am not sure how to include the relevant references (PDF documents and media releases) - will consult with someone more technically minded than myself and will update Llew44 (talk) 07:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the recent changes seem to include various opinions realting to the arrangement of the terminal areas. I propose to remove these opinions in the next few days unless some evidence can be provided.

I will also re-arrange the topics into more appropriate subtopics. Murray Langton 10:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with the new information which gives a comprehensive overview of the international terminal.

Yes there is - the "information" is really selective points of view (POV), which are not meant to be on Wikipedia. See: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view --Lholden 04:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err take a look. Most of the stuff just talks about the layout of the terminal. The only subjective POVs are all backed up by verifiable sources, e.g. newspaper articles anyway.

Good, verify them then. The only time the new sections get close is by mentioning some online forum - which is fine so long as it is backed up. I still hold that the language used in the "information" is the POV of the author. --Lholden 04:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So according to you sources such as airport press releases and newspapers are not "verifiable sources"; that is so funny.

I didn't say that at all. What I said was, if you have sources, verify them - use the "<.ref>" tag. You cannot simply write up Points Of View and then claim they're from a newspaper or press releases - youve actually got to verify the sources by putting in references. In any case, you're meant to write from a neutral perspective (i.e. as in NPOV) - for example, you'd say things like "some users of the airport have been critical of the terminal's layout"; and then reference the statement. --Lholden 04:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry, didn't realise you meant referencing as in hyperlinking.

AIA Name

[edit]

Auckland International Airport is currently rebranding itself to simply Auckland Airport. I thought waiting a bit before moving the page, if at all. Opinions? Loud noises (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets wait a few more months until the rest of the world has caught on, then, yes. Ingolfson (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, thought this over - if they have already started rebranding to the degree as having their website changed, we should do so too. Ingolfson (talk) 07:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Route connections

[edit]

The route connections map seems a bit strange to me - which airline flies Londong-Auckland DIRECT? Without stopovers? Ingolfson (talk) 02:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the airline industry, direct means the same aircraft is used to operate a flight from A to B (even if it has stopovers enroute -- such as AKL-HKG-LHR, AKL-LAX-LHR, etc). The phrase 'non-stop' doesn't mean the same as 'direct' even though to a layperson it sounds like it means the same thing. In any case, the map you refer to has a caption explaining that flights to LHR have a stop over in HKG or LAX. James Pole (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

China Southern

[edit]

Why is it still there? The airline hasn't said anything about adding Auckland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.98.116 (talk) 10:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EK service to DXB

[edit]

Those claiming EK does not serve DXB from AKL are kindly invited to check EK's timetable out. There are three different daily flights, each starting at AKL and ending at DXB, one with a stopover at MEL (flight 407), one with a stopover at SYD (flight 413) and the other with a stopover at BNE (flight 435).--Jetstreamer Talk 10:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As with other airport pages on Wikipedia, only direct and non-stop destinations should be listed, regardless of the flight number. You cannot fly to Dubai direct and non stop from Auckland

JQ service to CNS

[edit]

Removed Cairns from Jetstar's list of destinations as this service was discontinued after a second season — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.199.51 (talk) 06:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://airlineroute.net/2011/10/11/jq-aunz-nw1/ I challenge you to find a NON STOP flight between Auckland and Cairns on www.jetstar.com and I will back down from this.

Busiest International Routes

[edit]

For a long time, this section has been solely for routes to/from Australia because information for other airports has not been available. Although it appears that data is now available for Honolulu and Dubai, this section should not have become a 'busiest international routes' section, as it is now inaccurate. To be accurate it would need to display the 10 busiest international routes, not the 8 busiest Australian routes plus two others. Proof of this inaccuracy is that according to the table, AKL-Sunshine Coast (with just over 1000 passengers a year) is the 10th busiest international route. The table suggests that 8 of the 10 busiest routes are ones to/from Australia, which is not correct. So, in order to retain accuracy, I have changed it back to 'Busiest Routes to/from Australia'. OakleighPark (talk) 08:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Destinations Map

[edit]

The destinations map is quite old, and is contains several inaccuracies. Previously, these were dealt with by explaining the inaccuracy in the caption below, but it has now got to the point where the map needs to be sorted out. I tried editing the map, but I can't find the font that was used. So, does anyone know what font was used, or if not, should we create another map from scratch?

The map only includes international destinations and doesn't include charters. Seasonal destinations didn't exist from AKL when the map was made, so we are going to have to decide whether to include them. Personally, I'd be inclined to say that we should include them because they are each served by regular commercial services for a sizable portion of the year. In the past, issues have arisen over the difference between non-stop and direct flights and which one the map should show. The solution was to include all direct services, and mention in the caption if they included stops. OakleighPark (talk) 04:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Destinations that need to be Added

[edit]
  • Bali (Seasonal)
  • Sunshine Coast (Seasonal)
  • Taipei
  • Guangzhou
  • Suva

Destinations that need to be Removed

[edit]

The map

[edit]
Cities with direct international passenger airlinks with Auckland Airport. Links between Auckland and London stop for refuelling in Los Angeles.[1] Links between Auckland and Dubai stop for refuelling in Sydney, Brisbane or Melbourne. Links between Auckland and Taipei stop for refuelling in Sydney or Brisbane. Buenos Aires is no longer a direct destination between to/from Auckland.

We will again need to update the map soon. Andrew may be able to help with this. Cities to add are Manila, Beijing, Houston and the return of Buenos Aires all in December.CHCBOY (talk) 05:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The destination map has been updated this year so is a valid contribution to the page so should stay until a consensus is reached on its removal. Open for discussion. CHCBOY (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- I vote it to be kept for the reasons outlined above

References

  1. ^ International arrivals and departures

Charter entries in destinations box

[edit]

mainly @CHCBOY - Re Flight Hauraki and whether this entry should be in the destinations list. To me WP:AIRPORT-CONTENTis clear that these should not be listed. These flights are clearly ad hoc, private, and irregular. The same also goes for "Mountain air".

Also expanding on this question I have real reservations whether the Air New Zealand Japan and Pegasus Field (which hasn't happened yet) charters should also be listed. Christchurch Airport also has this issue. I have had a look around at other airports and the general trend I can see from the discussions of others is that charters are not normally listed as per the Aviation WikiProject guide listed above. Andrewgprout (talk) 04:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • You have some valid points, although when looking at Manchester airport as an example the entry for Flybe in the Airline list has both 'Seasonal' and 'Seasonal Charter' for different cities which is similar to the Air NZ Japan charters from Auckland. Although many of the flights listed for Manchester don't have any ref to back it up unlike AKL which has every city mentioned with a ref which I believe makes them a better candidate to be left in the list. CHCBOY (talk) 10:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New disputes/controversy/press section?

[edit]

Hi, I think there should be a new section about the above topics at AIA, to include stuff like Taxi driver pay/fees issues and a rotating hunger strike http://www.nzherald.co.nz/auckland-airport/news/article.cfm?o_id=15&objectid=11250751 and residents complaining about percieved increased noise around the airport due to changed flight paths http://www.nzherald.co.nz/auckland-airport/news/article.cfm?o_id=15&objectid=11264548 . I found some vaguely-relevant articles on NZH which I linked, but those may not be completely relevant. Junh1024 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines service

[edit]

This service is not a resumption. United last served Auckland in 2003 from LAX not SFO as per https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/29761977/united-airlines-to-resume-auckland-flights/. So therefore, this is a new service as it will fly to SFO. But on the United Airlines destinations page, Auckland is a resumption destination as already marked. Citydude1017 (talk) 04:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Citydude1017 for tracking down the new ref - the confusion over the previous, is a good example of the need to really read and transfer only what a quoted reference really says not what it is imagined it says.Andrewgprout (talk) 07:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Airline Route states that United Airlines will resume Auckland service in July 2016 but that reference implies that United Airlines served Auckland as a destination in 2003 but the airline flew from LAX to AKL not SFO. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 03:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Auckland Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prospective American Airlines flight

[edit]

There is a slowburning edit war over the inclusion of this being mentioned in the prospective flights section. On one hand the removals have been totally unexplained so reverting these is probably justified. On the other hand the reference supporting these prospective flights is very very weak. I think I would prefer this to be removed until some solid announcement by the airline is made but am open to suggestions. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The airline has solidly announced the service, beginning June 2, 2016. http://www.wsj.com/articles/american-airlines-announces-new-route-to-new-zealand-1447222465 is one source, can it be now moved to the regular service area? 144.9.56.131 (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The convention is to only put entries in the destinations table when an actual day of starting is announced. The American and Qantas news releases do not mention an actual date so I wonder about the authenticity of the date mentioned in your link? I can't get to it to check what it actually says - There is no real hurry here it is covered in the prospective flights section and will ultimately make its way to the table when dates are officially announced. I know that sounds a little pathetic but keeping control of these entries is an issue and the tables themselves are encyclopaedicly speaking somewhat fringe and their very existence could quite reasonably be challenged as not appropriate, so it is best to keep them nice and clean. Andrewgprout (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree, even though the same editor who removed it from the prospective flight section repeatedly last month did again remove it yesterday (seems its personal they don't want it mentioned for some unknown reason). But another editor has reverted there edit, we will have to keep an eye on the page to see if its removed again. Now we have solid announcement from AA it needs to be kept in the prospective area till an exact date is availble. CHCBOY (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source provided by the IP requires a sign in or a subscription to view the entire page. It should remain in the prospective flights section until an exact date is announced (then it can be included in the destinations table), AA officially announced that it will serve LAX-AKL in June 2016 (but no exact date). I don't think that AA has opened reservations for that route quite yet. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Destinations - Direct flight Air Tahiti Nui to Los Angeles - recent removal

[edit]

This flight has for a long time been in the destinations box - as a direct one stop same plane same flight number service. Of late this has a couple of times been removed due to this flihgt being via Papeete.

WP:AIRPORTS says "..avoid listing direct flights that contain a stop at a domestic hub, as virtually all of these are simply flights from one "spoke city" to a hub, with the plane continuing from the hub to a second spoke city." My reading of this (there is a reason the authors of this sentence said avoid rather than don't) is that in a true Airline Hub many flights are routed into and out of the hub for no other reason but convenience and there is no expectation that many people will truly use this flight as a direct connection to the further destination. This appears especially true in large US hubs where often the flight numbers continue on but nothing else including the aircraft does. This is however not the case here.

1. Air Tahiti Nui has only three destinations from Papeete, Auckland, los Angeles and Tokyo. Three routes does not make an Airline hub 2. The Tokyo flight which is entirely Japanese holidaying in Tahiti and has no connecting traffic to Auckland or Los Angeles - It would be a long way out of the way. 3. And the Auckland - Papeete - Los Angeles flight, carries people going to Tahiti but also many people connecting to Los Angeles. ie the only connecting passengers ie the thing that makes a hub a hub are from the very service people want removed. Oh the irony. 4. The flight number and presumably the plane is the same for the whole flight. 5. Direct flights to Los Angeles are actively marketed as such from NZ to LAX.

So I think there is ample evidence that Los Angels should be reinstated as a destination from Auckland. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes I agree with all your points above. On another point at work I often see bag tags with TN101 LAX on them so for the airline itself it is serving the AKL-LAX market although it is only two flights per week. I believe the flight would not be viable with just AKL-PPT traffic alone to fill the cabin however that point is not really relevant here. Should we got consensus with the other editors before it can be included again? CHCBOY (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No more discussion I will put it back. Andrewgprout (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Destination map and the Prospective flights list

[edit]

There has not been a formal policy at WP:Airports that these are not allowed. Also as many other airport pages still have them included there should be a consensus reached for there removal first. We have had this brought up on here before but the agreement in the past was to allow them to stay in the article.CHCBOY (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that the previous discussions across Wikipedia were about the preponderance of simple "this airport connects with these countries" type of maps which I agree are pretty useless. In this case the map is maintained and almost currently correct and clearly adds the the understanding of the article's subject. Andrewgprout (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Auckland Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Does anyone think there should be a photo gallery added to the page?CHCBOY (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. The image use policy prefers images to be interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text, rather than in an image gallery which is more suited to Wikimedia Commons (see the policy on image galleries at WP:IG). A gallery would only be appropriate, in accordance with the policy, if the subject cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images, which is not really the case here. A gallery would resemble more of a 'spotter's guide', which is not what wikipedia is for. SempreVolando (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for the detailed reply.CHCBOY (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Auckland Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Air Canada seasonal

[edit]

An editor has persistently changed the inauguration date of an Air Canada seasonal route that will apparently be launched from Vancouver to Auckland on 12 December 2019. It's bad enough that the editor used two blogs for sources, but he/she is also interpreting from them that the date of the inaugural return flight (Auckland to Canada) is 14 December. This date is not mentioned in the sources. This is WP:SYNTHESIS and was identified as such in a revision by another editor. Akld guy (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I nearly removed the entry entirely because it seems that the editor is struggling to come up with reliable sources. Decided it was better to give her/him another opportunity. Akld guy (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I too looked very hard at this and on this occasion just decided to leave it. The refs given are really stretching the facts however that is not unusual in referencing flights in destination tables. Overall I believe that the stop and start dates of flights are totally and absolutely unencyclopedic and should not be there at all - they are just an excuse for pedanticness we or readers don't need. I believe they are there and they are tolerated by the community because without them the tables would become absolutely unmanagable without some radical change of scope to the tables. I do think that generally there are better ways to fulfil the encyclopedic need to present the sphere of influence an airport has (which is the extent of the encyclopedic need) without creating a detailed directory WP:NOTDIRECTORY that these table currently are. Andrewgprout (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. There is a lot of edit warring going on in other airport articles regarding including future destinations, check out Sofia Airport. Ajf773 (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

[edit]

Hi there, is there better source for NZ airport statistics ? "Table: Total passenger movements by NZ port and selected closest overseas ports (Annual-Dec)" http://archive.stats.govt.nz/infoshare/SelectVariables.aspx?pxID=97e5ce16-4942-44e6-9c8b-46f99a0fbe2b The way it is presented is slightly odd. --Bouzinac (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New York - Newark

[edit]

@Gbrkk:Although perhaps it will not now happen - Air New Zealand's flight to New York will fly to EWR which is an airport just across the Hudson from downtown Manhattan. Of late a couple of editors have insisted the destination of this flight to Newark - which is absolutely where the airport is. However nowhere in Wikipedia do we make similar destinctions about destinations. We don't say Crawley for Gatwick, or Renfrew for Glasgow or Mangare for Auckland etc etc etc and etc - and all of those places are further from their named city. Why is New York different? The destination is and will be marketed as and refered to as New York by anyone who is going there.Andrewgprout (talk) 04:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewgprout: Look at any other airport article on Wikipedia. EWR is always referred to as Newark in destination lists. At any rate, you couldn't put just New York, as that doesn't disambiguate among any of the three airports in the area (to say nothing of HPN, ISP, SWF also being considered "New York"). Newark is a city in its own right, and here in the States, New York–Newark is never used anyway. Also, the passengers—many of whom will just be connecting to other places on UA—will only see Newark on their boarding pass. Gbrkk (talk) 05:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gbrkk: sorry but I'm not particularly interested what occurs on other Wikipedia pages they should not really be used as a template. Other than yes I agree the name can be and probably should be disambiguated, you haven't answered why New York is different than everywhere else in the world. All of the London airports are in cities in their own right too. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewgprout: Actually, they should be used as a template to ensure consistency—please see WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT for the relevant style guide. If you look at the destinations for Delta Connection, you'll note that Newark is used. This is because, as I have said, New York–Newark is not common usage. Gbrkk (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Auckland_Airport&oldid=1205479603"