Talk:British Airways/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

British Airways World Cargo

In my opinion this should be lengthened and perhaps even made in to a separate article, if one visits the page of even a small airline the fleet an destinations are usually listed, why not here? 94.1.42.108 (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Dont have a problem with more reliable sourced and notable information but I am not sure it is notable enough for its own article it is only a brand not an airline in its own right.MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Logo

The svg logo, while very well drawn, does not feature the reflections of light on the red side of the ribbon in the way the official logo does. Colourlines (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted, i have uploaded the correct one (i think). Let me know if its better --JetBlast (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. Colourlines (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Announcement of Intent of Purchase

If someone with time could look at these: http://news.businessweek.com/article.asp?documentKey=1376-LRRWPB6S972N01-1RMD4462PG4JUMQQSLKJTULMF8

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/19/britishairways-planes-idUSL5E7KJ3KA20110919

Fan Railer (talk) 01:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Structure: Suggested revision

Hello all,

I'm in the middle of a copy-edit at the moment and have noticed some discrepancies in the structure which might be revised.

There's some possible overlap between the "Corporate affairs" "Operations" and "Marketing sections", plus a lot of short sections that might be better included under a banner.

Operations

Partnerships

Destinations

Fleet

"Operations" & "World Cup Cargo" from Corporate affairs section

Incidents and accidents (should ideally be written as prose)

Marketing

Tail fins

Loyalty programmes

"Airport lounges" and "Cabins" might go in either one.

"Merger with Iberia" --> Corporate affairs section

Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 11:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Destinations Served Maps

This image needs updating. BA also flies to Nigeria, Ghana, Morroco. BA Subsiduaries (Comair) also fly to Botswana and Mozambique. 81.132.146.20 (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:British Airways/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been a GA since September 2009 but there are some issues which need addressing.

• There is a 'clarification needed' tag in Recent aircraft orders.

• Within the Branding subsection of Marketing, there are several short paragraphs which could be brought together. The final paragraph on London 2012 needs references.

• Within the Loyalty programmes subsections, there is a 'citation needed' tag in the Premier section. There should also be references for Avios.

Cloudbound (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

In only 15 minutes, I've managed to sort over half the issues out. It seems a bit much nominating the entire article for reassessment when these errors could be fixed in about the same time it took to list it for reassessment to begin with. Kyteto (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. That's very noble of you. It isn't one of the article's I've been working on, so I thought it best to put it here for others to improve it and comment. Cloudbound (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments

While this article is at GAR, I have some additional concerns, which are considerably more structural than those stated above:

• My general impression of the article is that it reads as though it were written by the marketing department of BA, not by a neutral third party.
• At least parts of the article reads more as an entry at WikiTravel than in an encyclopedia.
• The article tends to over-focus on recent events and trivialities
• Instead of writing prose, the article is filled with minor lists, breaking up the content and giving less context

These issues all concern criteria 1a, 3b, and to less degree, criteria 4. Specific issues include:

1. In the history section, the merger with Iberia takes up one-third of the section, and is also a top-level section (3b)
2. The table under "financial performance" is not encyclopedic, as it is a data dump of very detailed information. Instead, the history section should be written in such a way as to reflect the development in key figures in a holistic way. (3b) This section is also full of capitalization errors (1a).
3. Instead of writing a section in prose explaining the various franchise affairs of BA, the "Subsidiaries, franchisees and shareholdings" section is full of bullet lists. Particularly in this section, there are many short paragraphs, failing criteria 1a.
4. What on earth does the sentence "British Airways holds a United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority Type A Operating Licence, and is permitted to carry passengers, cargo, and mail on aircraft with 20 or more seats." mean? Why should an airline which operates the 747 not have permission to operate 20+ seat aircraft? (3b)
5. Most of the operations information is actually history.
6. Then there is the odd sentence "British Airways owns a 13.5% stake in Spanish airline Iberia." (4)
7. The destinations section does not summarize the airline's route network. For instance, it does not mention its hubs, the distribution of short-haul/long-haul services, but instead is a list of other airlines without direct connection with BA (3b)
8. Similarly, a more appropriate way to summarize the partnership section would be in prose, explaining the context and extent (3b/1a).
9. A two-sentence section, "technology", which is placed under "partnership"? (1a)
10. Again, the engine choice section should be written in prose instead of lists. (1a)
11. The section on marketing is comparable in length to the history section, and goes into vast detail about rather marginal issues, and again presents a deep recent bias. In particular the section on the mile calculator is not the type of information which is considered encyclopedic. Also the arms section should, if included, be changed to prose presentation. (3b)
12. The cabin section is by far the most extreme violation of 3b; a section the same length as for instance the history section, it goes into sufficient detail to identify the specific meal on any given flight. The information can best be described as cruft, and can in no way be described as encyclopedic.
13. The section on "Flight Information and Control of Operations" goes far into detail on a marginal issue, even mentioning the number of segments in a particular software. (3b)
14. Despite the amount of detail in some areas, the article completely fails to address more technical concerns, for instance, does BA maintain its own aircraft, does it operate its own ground handing at its hubs, to what degree does it own or lease aircraft? This sort of information I would expect to see in the operations section. (3b)

While perhaps none of the issues in isolation grave, in sum the article falls short of the criteria. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment, espeically that some ridiculous amounts of inane and pointless information has been packed into some parts of the article, with far too much focus on the recent 'now' perspective. I shall work on this over the coming week. Kyteto (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

(4) The statement refers to what the airline is actually licensed for - you dont get a ticket for flying 747s just anything over 20 seats. It can be changed it is really just saying that the airline is actually licensed and provides a link to the licence details. MilborneOne (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

(6) I removed this from shareholding - although referenced it is likely that the shareholding has been passed to the IAG, please revert if you think I am wrong. MilborneOne (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

(10) Cut back the engine choice section to one para but I am not sure it really tells us anything other than they use engines from all the big manufacturers. Perhaps consider removing it, thoughts? MilborneOne (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

(11) Just a comment on the "Arms" section and agree with the comments but I also think it has undue weight as a large banner in the article, I also think that the image is only a small part of the coat of arms! (the bit with the moto is missing). MilborneOne (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed we already have an image further up the article of the "proper" coat of arms so I have removed the large and clearly wrong infobox. MilborneOne (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

(13) I removed the FICO bit it doesnt appear to be particularly notable or relevant or unique. MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I have worked hard to address, and hopefully resolve: (1), (3), (4), (11), (12). Many of your major points have been addressed, with the combined efforts of editors over 12% of the article has been cut away in the process of slimming it down. My efforts wll continue, but an update on your continued priorities for this work in light o the heavy changes would be desirable, it would be a shame for this article to fail if only through a communication gap. Kyteto (talk) 03:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The article is looking much better. The financial performance could be replaced with a graph showing pax, revenue and income from 1975 through 2010. If I can find data for all those years, I can attempt to make such a graph, although the current link is dead. If anyone comes across any such data, please post the link here. I'll have a look at the article in more detail when I have slightly more time. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Please note that I have recently attempted to contruct a graph in a test environment, but it is simply beyond me. I cannot perform the task well enough, there are just too much data types for me to get my head around and properly outline, I've got no experience in working with this aspect of Wiki code. Kyteto (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hows the reassessment going? AIRcorn (talk) 06:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for keeping this at GAR for this length of time. All my issues have been resolved, so I'm going to archive this GAR as a keep. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

removal of content based on WP:N

WP:N states, "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles,..."  Unscintillating (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The incident you are talking about has no long term value. 20 years from now noday will care about it or will have never have heard about it. The statement "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles" is talking about WP:N page, it is not a guidline itself. Under WP:Airline British Airways flight 2157‎ is not notable so shouldnt be in the article. --JetBlast (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

So why do you think the nutshell of WP:N says, "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles?"  Perhaps you should be using the word "prominence"?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Its means the policy WP:N applies to the creation of articles and the articles as a whole, not the content. So you cannot use WP:N to arugue the point. --JetBlast (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Notability vs. prominence as well as WP:NPOV.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I am editing from a Neutral point of view, just becuase it isnt notable doesnt mean i am not neutral. Have you seen Wikipedia:Aircrash? --JetBlast (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As you have not replied you agree that it is now not notable? --JetBlast (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

77W

BA have now received their sixth 77W. But the article states that it has 2 more on order. Are there any sources about this? I've not read it anywhere?--MJLRGS (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Updated it, when the total was changed the order figure was not corrected, ba now have six. MilborneOne (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Contradictions

The first part of the article states that BA has 52 744s, but in the table below the number is 61 - the number of 777s happens to be 52. The "Fleet" paragraph states that "The airline introduced the Boeing 737 and Boeing 757 into the fleet in the 1980s", but the tables below don't list 757s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.231.110 (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Because some users are using amateur enthusiast sites to update the data rather than more reliable sources the figures get out of sync. The 757 is listed in the British Airways Fleet, 1990s–2000s as they have all now been retired and sold. MilborneOne (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Fleet procurement

The section of the article titled 'recent orders' is very out of date. should either be deleted or updated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.33.147 (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Financial_performance

Figures in the table are mostly unsourced. Strange, given that the article is currently a GA one. What to do?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

If nobody can find more sources, i would get rid of it. --JetBlast (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I hid the entire sub-section for the time being. Nobody added references to support the content in a month.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the article should be semi-protected

In the fleet section, it looks like there is an argument in the number of aircraft. At times, it says there are 55 747-400s and at other times 57. Also the same problem with the 777-200ER: at times 43 aircraft, other times 46. I think the article should be semi-protected since this number of aircraft argument is getting annoying.72.89.35.142 (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Not really disruptive enough to protect the article, the issue is the source of the information. The consensus for a long time is that official sources like the CAA or British Airways should be used for fleet information but some editors are using enthusiast websites as a reason to change the figures. We sometimes also have problems with editors removing aircraft in temporary storage from the figures, although this is normally sourced from enthusiast websites as well and is not really encyclopedic. But we have to remember that the enthusiast websites are not reliable sources. MilborneOne (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I have now corrected the figures based on the offical UK Aircraft Register, i think this is the best source to use. --JetBlast (talk) 08:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The general view that the pages should not be moved, discussion is now 3 months old. --JetBlast (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Why have a separate stub for a subsidiary??--Petebutt (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Although British Airways Limited is a subsidary, it is a separate registered airline with its own airline operation certificate, a Type A operating licence, its own route licences, its own codeshare arrangement with other airlines (American), a separate legal company, an ICAO code and callsign. Other subsidaries like BA CityFlyer have an article, similar sized OpenSkies has an article, so I cant see any valid reason to merge it here. MilborneOne (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose MilborneOne said it all, nothing to add. --JetBlast (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose above reasons. Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

British Airways Limited

Hi, I was wondering if some editors here could please help to expand the article British Airways Limited. Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Image Culling

Hi, I have removed a number of images. They are just simply not needed, there are plenty on in the article and are there just for decoration. Its cluttering the place up. Plus those who have slow internet speeds suffer a little. Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

NPOV Issues

At times I felt that I was reading the in-flight magazine of BA. There is a need to include some of the less savory aspects of the company, such as its problems with religious discrimination against certain faiths. Excluding the record of what took place with Nadia Eweida makes this article skewed and biased in favor of BA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.75 (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Fleet Section - Boeing 767 Layouts

I beileve that there is an error regarding the seating capacities of 767's, since it shows only 1 - class and 3 - class (Business, Premium Economy and Economy) versions. However, I'm pretty sure that there are 2 - class (Club Europe and Euro Traveller) versions of this plane in the airline.