Talk:Paine Field

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the airport project.

United States: Washington Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Mid-importance).

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

And we’re off! First passenger flight leaves Everett (Herald)
Paine Field: What to expect when 'Seattle's second airport' opens March 4 (USA Today)
Private Money Takes On Bigger Role in Airport Projects (NY Times)
Paine Field airport faces churn but remains profitable, even as Boeing and airlines contract (Seattle Times)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://nw.epls.org/cgi-bin/pquery.exe?CISOROOT=%2FHerald&CISOOP=adv&CISOFIELD1=subjec&CISOBOX1=Airplanes&CISORESTMP=%2Fqbuild%2Ftest_template1.html&CISOVIEWTMP=%2Fqbuild%2Ftest_template2.html&CISOCOLS=5&CISOROWS=3&CISOSTART=1
- In Paine Field on Mon Jul 17 15:22:56 2006, 404 Not Found
- In Paine Field on Thu Jul 27 00:46:23 2006, 404 Not Found

maru (talk) contribs 04:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing plant in Everett

There is a stub to edit a page about the "Boeing Everett plant," but on the largest buildings page there is a "Everett Plant" link which is just a redirector to Boeing.

Consider starting an article about the Everett plant and consolidating the two links —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.213.53 (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

MRD

I've added references to both the original MRD's recommendation to discourage commercial air service, and to the joint county review of the MRD that recommended the MRD be retired and not used as a planning document for KPAE.Sbrynen (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future Air Service

CorruptionFighter yea, there isn't anything scheduled, but it is in fact in the works. the FAA pressured Paine into looking into building a new terminal. how do you know there isn't? did you read the source? im not arguing with you beyond this. just telling you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Padsquad43 (talk • contribs)

The single most important current affair for KPAE is the application by two airlines to serve the airport with scheduled passenger service. Unfortunately someone keeps removing the reference, and adding words like "unwanted" to the description of this. Unless you can show why the removals are appropriate, I will request a 3rd party to adjudicate this dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbrynen (talk • contribs) 16:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CorruptionFighter; if you think naming the airlines that serve, or potentially serve an airport, can I suggest you start removing the names of airlines at LHR & JFK and see what kind of reaction you receive. Also, it appears that you are targeting only commercial air carriers, considering them as advertising, but Boeing, Goodrich and the names of flight schools are openly mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbrynen (talk • contribs) 16:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ATS Changes

Just a heads up, but the ATS building at the south end of the field has been purchased by Boeing and is known as the EMC or "Everett Modification Center". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.145.191 (talk) 03:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"small international airport"

This is used in the lede, first sentence. This may not reflect the character of the airport. It is not a small airport. It is "international" only in the sense of a customs presence. However, a customs presence is a poor defining criteria for this airport. Many airports with passenger service try to make their names sound more important, so they add "international" to the name, especially in the U.S. This is not necessary in this article. I propose that "small" and "international" be deleted from the first sentence. Vanguard10 (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Runway changes

Seems that the closed runway 11/29 is getting renamed to 12/30 if or when it reopens.
More importantly, it's also getting shortened considerably, from 4500ft to 2000ft. See this document diagram:
https://www.painefield.com/DocumentCenter/View/473
They already cut into the runway at the NW end, in the center of the airfield, as seen on Google Earth imagery as of 05/2017.
Seems like an important change.

Alaska Airlines does not fly here (2019)

Wikipedia and editors should not be paid (or unpaid) ____ of an airline. Some airlines like to hide the fact that a regional partner actually flies the flight. The current destinations chart shows "United Express". This is fair. However, it should not show "Alaska Airlines" because Alaska Airlines does not fly the route. AlaskaHorizon operated by Horizon Air does. AlaskaHorizon is the name for some regional flights, just as United Express or Delta Connection is.

Look here when I searched for flights on Alaskaair.com

   Alaska
   2740
   Wi-Fi available
   in-flight entertainment available
   PAE
   7:30 am
   SJC
   9:45 am
   2hours 15minutes  | 
   Departing flight Option 4 Nonstop Details
    | 
   Departing flight Option 4 Preview seats
   Flight 2740 is operated by Horizon Air as AlaskaHorizon

Aerostar3 (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not accuse other editors of being "stooges". Use proper secondary sources to state your case; almost all local and national sources I've seen use Alaska as the sole brand, regardless of operator. Sounder Bruce 23:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

corrected this. Aerostar3 (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

reporters are typically ignorant about aviation stuff. In Wikipedia, we don't purposely put wrong information just because a reporter got it wrong. Otherwise, we'd say that the Sri Lanka bombings killed 350+ and insist that it was sourced. Aerostar3 (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.heraldnet.com/business/weve-compiled-timetables-for-paine-field-passenger-service/

paid editors trying to pump up the image of a company are stooges by definition. Sorry. Similarly, you cannot say Pol Pot or Himmler were human rights campaigners because it's just not true. Furthermore, I never called anyone specifically a stooge. Aerostar3 (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pol Pot and Himmler have nothing to do with this. Also, please don't call anyone (even non-specifically) stooges. Let's be civil man. Mitch32^{(Fame is a four letter word.)} 06:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a settled matter that in Wikipedia, we do not put "United Airlines" for the commuter flights. That is the reason we should not use "Alaska Airlines" unless it is operated by that airline. Aerostar3 (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

The subject has been discussed at great length in the Wikiproject Airports. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_17#Potential_Major_Change_to_WP:Airports:_Removing_Regional_Carrier_Listings_from_Airport_Articles

The consensus decision was that the regional carrier is to be listed, for example United Express, not United. With the same reasoning, "Alaska Airlines" is not to be used because, as of 2019, the flights are operated by Horizon Air, not Alaska. Aerostar3 (talk) 05:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing some of the other discussions on the Wikiproject Airports page. Under other talk sections, it was largely agreed that Alaska Airlines should be the exception to that rule because it is unique among the US airlines in that it does not use a special brand for flights operated by a regional carrier. United flights operated by SkyWest are branded as United Express, but Alaska flights operated by SkyWest are branded as Alaska. The page now says "Alaska Airlines operated by Horizon Air as AlaskaHorizon" so under the same logic the United flights would need to say "United Airlines operated by SkyWest Airlines as United Express." At the end of the day, encyclopedia readers don't need this level of detail of knowing who's operating which flight for what airline, there are specialty sources with that information. We are just trying to provide a broad overview of which carriers offer services at this airport and where they fly. I vote we return back to simply "Alaska Airlines." --RickyCourtney (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So then the chart should be "AlaskaHorizon". The bottom line is ticketing: Alaska or United, operated by: Horizon Air or Skywest, brand is AlaskaHorizon or United Express. We must pick. Possible logical choices are:

Alaska and United: But this has been rejected when someone mass-changed all United Express and American Eagle to United and American, respectively, creating uproar and they backed down.

AlaskaHorizon and United Express: ok by me

Alaska, operated by Horizon Air and United, operated by Skywest: ok by me

Aerostar3 (talk) 05:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aerostar3: This should have been mentioned earlier on this page, but omitting the "operated by" information is an established style guideline for Airport pages. See note 3 under Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content#Airlines and destinations:

For flights operated by one airline but marketed by another, so that the flight uses only the marketing airline's flight number, avoid using the term operated by or dba, an abbreviation of the American business term doing business as (e.g. "Alaska Airlines", not "Alaska Airlines operated by Skywest Airlines").

If you disagree with this guideline, it should be discussed with the on the talk page of the WikiProject Airports group or with an RfC (which I believe you have started). The talk page for a single airport is not the proper venue to challenge a guideline that effects hundreds of airport pages. Cheers! --RickyCourtney (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]