Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines/Fleet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Style 2 Comments on some of the data 3 Sort order 4 Fleet Chart 5 Northwest Airlines table all the way. 6 2, 3, 4 or 5 Column Design 7 Over capitalization

[edit] Style

My vote is for the United one. Tables can screw up the display (or in the case of the Delta one, just look hideous), and I think the expanded list format is more appropriate for fleet info. The US Airways one is a little too sparse, so I'd go with the United style. Dbinder 21:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

My vote would be for a mixture of America West and United. TorontoStorm 16:01, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

My vote would be for the US Airways approach as it reflects the reality of the information available for most airlines and most current articles (by that I don't mean the majors - the airline articles feature hundreds of small airlines where tables or United style info would not be meaningful, even if it was available). The US Airways approach is also substantially easier to update. I am opposed to tables because of the effect on overall display (as mentioned above) and to the United approach as it looks cluttered. We are also surely supposed to be making it easy for contributors to add data, and tables certainly don't help that, whereas the US Airways approach is simple and easy to input and update. Ardfern 23:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

My vote is for neither. I have managed to incorporate a simple layout that is very user-friendly and easy to read. Check ANY of the SkyTeam airline pages, including new member Aeroflot as well as soon to be member China Southern. Golich17 17:03, October 10, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on some of the data

Orders are important in my mind. The engine types are of interest for mergers since the same aircraft equipped with different engines can have different controls and would be an issue in a merger. Planned fleet reductions are important. Overwater rated aircraft may be worth a note. Do we worry about commonality of aircraft in terms of crew staffing? As an example, it is one rating for A-317, A-319 and A-320 but another common one for the A-330 and A-340. How do we deal with sleeper beds and other ammenities offered on some aircraft and not others. Is the number of seating classes important? Vegaswikian 21:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sort order

No matter what style is used, I think listing by capacity is logical since the larger the aircraft the more important they seem to be for the airline. Vegaswikian

[edit] Fleet Chart

The US Air format is great, though does it need to be centered? Also, should the number of seats be included? I mean, can't this change rather often. I like the following based on suggestions here and other places:

Type	Number	Orders/Options	Notes
Airbus A320-800	10	20 on order, 20 options	Launch airline for Airbus 320
Boeing 747-400	35		Largest fleet of Boeing 747-400

To see how it looks, look at Aeroflot.

I know that some fleet charts contain lots of information (see Delta). The notes column could be used to give different airlines a unique flavor and at the same time keeping it simple.

As for the order, I like keeping jets at the top starting with Airbus (in numerical order such as A320, A330, A340), then Boeing (i.e. 737, 747, DC10, MD11, MD82), then any others in alphabetical order. Then planes with turboprops would follow, possible in a separate chart.

So, how does this work? Who decides which format becomes the standard and when it should be implemented?

--mnw2000

---

To restart this discussion here is a portion of the United table. Since it contains most of what everyone wants, I'd suggest that we make this the standard if there are no serious objections I'll add it to the project page in a few days. Vegaswikian 21:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

United Airlines Fleet

Type	Number	United Airlines Type	Type Number	Seats	Seats/Class			Orders/ Options	Notes
					First	Business	Economy
Airbus 319-100	55	N/A	N/A	120	8	0	112	23	Domestic/short-haul, used on some transcontinental routes
Airbus 320-200	98	Mainline	41	138	12	0	126	18 on deferred order	Domestic/short-haul, used on some transcontinental routes
		Ted	56	156	0	0	156

• We would also need to have guidelines for terms link 'short-haul' so that it is understoon what this means. Likewise domestic. Is Hawaii domestic in these tables? I think it would be even though airlines tend to price these flights as other then domestic. Vegaswikian 21:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Northwest Airlines table all the way.

My vote is for the Northwest Airlines one. It is clear and simple, as I have been editing it generally for the past couple of months. I have intergrated this table style in ALL US Major Airlines as well as ALL SkyTeam airlines. I dislike the "old" delta table listed their... I did change their table format to the one that Northwest Airlines has... and some changes to the general Northwest Airlines table has been changed. I also like the United Airlines one, but... editing in that table is difficult where my format in the Northwest Airlines table is very simple to edit and format. The following suggestions should be considered

Northwest Airlines Fleet

Type	Total	Passengers (First*/Economy)	Routes	Notes
Airbus A319-100	66 (5 Orders)	124 (16/108)	United States, Canada, Mexico Routes	Short-Medium Haul Domestic Routes
Airbus A320-200	72 (2 Orders)	148 (16/132)	United States, Canada, Mexico Routes	Short-Medium Haul Domestic Routes

Center the table. Have the airlines name and fleet right above the table as shown, and use Economy as coach sounds tacky. Golich 17 27 October 2006

• Planes have seats and not pasengers. Your reason for not supporting the UA style box appears to be that it does not support the routes flown on. Its that really important encylopedic material? You also don't want to use it because it is a bit harder to set up. However the display on the UA layout is a lot easier to read and much clearer. If there is a compromise maybe it is to use the UA one with the last column labeled notes/routes? That way the information you want to add is included and the better layout is kept. Vegaswikian 01:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I started converting the lists of fleets into simple charts some time ago. There were already several fleets such as Delta and United in chart format already, but I found these charts overwhelming. I favor a minimalist approach. I guess, between United and NWA, I choose NWA. There is one issue still unresolved, how to deal with fleets owned by a major airlines, but used by other carriers such as Comair and Delta. Should we include these fleets on the major airlines page or just supply a link below that airlines fleet. Personally, I favor the link. user:mnw2000 05:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• So even if the layout of the UA table is totally clear it should not be used in favor of a table that dos not clearly identify the elements in the table? This is an encylopedia and clarity is important. Don't hide information when you can clearly display the data. Vegaswikian 07:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Many airlines don't supply as much information as United does. Some don't supply a breakdown of the First Class, Business Class and Coach seats because it changes regularly. Other airlines devote an entire plane type to a certain route whereas others do not. I thought the chart looked for a common structure that would apply to all airlines. I don't have a problem with more information, but I hate charts where there is a lot of information that seems missing. One example is that I have favored removing the types of engines in the fleet information as unnecessary. user:mnw2000 15:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• I vote also for the NW table, but in stripped down form. It's clear and concise, easy to read. The United one is just a mess in comparison, with too much data that would be unavailable for many airlines and is far too dynamic. It should have: Type, Number, Seats, Notes. Simple and easy to use. No reason to provide in depth data on every aspect of the fleet skyskraper 12:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • While not happy, I could support this as a comopromise. I think this is what you are suggesting.

Proposed airlines fleet

Type	Aircraft (options/on order)	Seats (First/Business/Economy)	Notes
Airbus A319-100	66 (5 orders)	124 (16/0/108)	Domestic routes
Airbus A320-200	72 (2 orders)	148 (16/0/132)	Domestic routes

Vegaswikian 18:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• basically yes thats what i'm getting at, but notes shouldnt strictly be for routes, moreso for any points of interest. Ie: special liveries, differing engine configs, etc. in depth data is usually attainable from planespotters and in some cases airline websites. skyskraper 12:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I did not intend to imply that notes was only for route information. It was all that was available in the example that I modified. Vegaswikian 18:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• The reason I selected Passengers was because planes hold passengers. Either way to me is fine, and if the majority feel Seats is the correct name, I'm fine with that. The routes section of the table for most airlines lack information, therefore you are right that their is no need for that section. Of course, we can display the type of haul the aircraft is flown by in the "Notes" section. I do believe the the orders should be under the amount of aircraft as it uses less space. Some readers may have a small screen therefore we should make it convienent. For the amount of seats, we should display the format of the plane, (Bus/Econ), (First/Econ), (First/Bus/Econ), etc. The aligncenter and center commands in the table would be no longer needed if the whole table would be centered. Also, display what the asterix means on the bottom of page by inputing the "sup" command and then a * and what it is there for. Here is an example of what I desire at this time as some things have changed from the last table I shown.

Proposed Airlines Fleet

Aircraft	Total (Orders/Options)	Seats (First*/Economy)	Notes
Airbus A319-100	66 (5 Orders)	124 (16/108)	Domestic Routes
Airbus A320-200	72 (2 Orders)	148 (16/132)	Domestic Routes

--Golich17 03:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2, 3, 4 or 5 Column Design

Seems like the 4 column design is winning out. Nice and simple. I recently updated Delta Airlines with the four column design. So my two cents worth...

Passenger vs. Seats - Seats are what are available whether passengers sit in them or not.

Centering - This is tricky.
If the number is followed on the same line by something in parentheses, like orders, then NO.
If the information in parentheses is below the number, then YES. See an example below. See how the numbers line up nicely?

Centered	Not Centered
450 (15 on order)	450 (15 on order)
250	450

I, personally, like the number of planes with the number on order below it in parentheses CENTERED and
the number of seats with the class breakdown next to it LEFT JUSTIFIED.

Again, my two cents... user:mnw2000 04:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• I reverted your Delta edit as it crowds the table up very much so. It is easier to read with the routes section. I recently updated many tables the way I have displayed it above with the routes section as I do still believe it is necassary. Take a look at the Northwest Airlines fleet table or the Air Canada fleet table, which are simple to edit, read, and layout.--Golich17 21:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I guess we will go with a 5 Column Design. (Please forgive me for any airlines that I have already changed.)

• • Again this may be an issue of what material should be in the table. Listing the routes that the aircraft are used on is not encyclopedic material for the general public. 'Lie-Flat Sleeper Suites' is also pushing what is encylopedic data. There is a travel wiki where details like these are probably better kept. Vegaswikian 23:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand that Route data is encyclopedic material, but general information, such as continents or hauls should be displayed.--Golich17 01:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree, this information is far too dynamic for inclusion and often unable to be summarised easily. At least for inclusion in tables anyway.

When I first saw fleets, they were a jumble of different charts, unordered lists and text. I thought converting them into a simple standardized chart would make it easier to read. Where some charts includes information such as the type of engines used and other included the routes that each plane was used for, I thought that there was only three pieces of information needed: aircraft type, number of that aircraft in the fleet and the number of seats for that aircraft. We added a fourth item called Notes for anything else. Now we have added a column called Routes even though most airlines don't really assign a particular plane to a particular route. (Take a look at how many types of plane fly the JFK-LAX route - practically all of them.)

So let's make things REAL simple. Two columns - type of aircraft and number of aircraft in the fleet or on order. user:mnw2000 04:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. That would ruin the information we have gathered already. The tables should have the aircraft type, number in the fleet, passengers with seating layout, and notes. The routes section would have to be discussed further to find out if we can do anything with it. Your idea is horrible.--Golich17 20:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with you that dropping the last 2 columns would make the table useless. Vegaswikian 20:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Good, I agree. I voted for four columns (Aircraft, Number, Seats (Layout) and Notes. I noticed that a fifth column is being added to many Airlines Fleet (even though the column is empty in most cases) called Routes. However, remember, the Fleet Section was originally just an unordered list with the number of aircraft for each type. A few airlines had charts that were anywhere from 4 to 7 columns.

So the only issue now is whether we should have a column called Routes. user:mnw2000 21:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• With the current consensus for the 4 column layout, I think routes is not included except under notes for notable information. Vegaswikian 22:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Routes routes routes routes. It should be quite clear by now that I think there is no correlation that can be clearly defined across all airlines for this data. At least in terms of relating routes to airframe models for a particular operator.skyskraper 15:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • ON a different note, I don't think anyone has proposed a definition for terms like short-haul andlong-haul. Without a clear understanding of what those terms mean they are basically unsourced comments. Vegaswikian 17:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, many airlines list the "type" of routes each aircraft is used for on their web site. However, the terminology differs between the airlines. If routes are going to be used, then we should limit it to the "type" of route as defined by the airlines themselves. The problem I see is that, as the previous comments stated, there is no real standard for what these terms mean. Longhaul for a small domestic airlines may mean US transcontinental flight while it may mean a flight from Hong Kong to San Fransisco for another airlines. My two cents was to remove the column, but it was added back to Delta (with a lot of confusing information) and other airlines (with no information).

I vote for 4 columns - Aircraft, Number, Seats (with layout) and Notes user:mnw2000 19:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thats it. agree 90%. Model (I mean model series, not 767-2XA and then another column for 767-2XB, or 767-2XA ER), then number of frames, then notes. I'm torn on seats/layout, simply because there are going to be a large number of carriers with inconsistent configurations across their fleets. Perhaps we should use Model - Quantity - Most common Configuration - Notes, and then we can have non table notes outlining differences across frame models. ie: the 777-2|| has 6 first class, 16 business class, whilst the 777-2|| ER aircraft are configured with: seats seats seats, etc. Lets be encyclopedic, concise, and simple about this rather then purely enthusiasticskyskraper 16:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I prefer to simply have the range of seats for the aircraft (200-300) rather than multiple items with different layouts. The purpose was simply to show the general size of the aircraft. Some airlines have as many as five different layouts for a single aircraft. However, many like the idea of including the layout. One other thing. What is with the use of letters before the number of seats? user:mnw2000 16:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed in principle, we need to make it clear then that seats be strictly a guideline for each airline, as opposed to potential misuse of seats and notes that will present itself. With respect to letters, do you mean when it is said F/J/Y/C/etc,xx (xx being a number)? if so it's just people being elitist. configurations should be described as First, Business, Premium Economy, and Economy. A set of descriptions that EVERYONE (not just early teen aviation geeks, and people in the industry understand. skyskraper 16:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I meant the use of A:201 (15F/186Y), B:220 (220Y), when there are multiple layouts. I like the number of seats, either as a value or a range, centered in the column. When you start to add layouts and these letters, the centering makes no sense and it gets very confusing. user:mnw2000 16:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• • See Hawaiian Airlines for an example that covers multiple aircraft in diferent configurations. The table is readable and clear. Vegaswikian 18:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen that one. While it looks fine for a small airlines like Hawaiian Airlines, it would be very long for an airlines like Delta, American, BA, etc.) I still think a range for the seats (without the layout) looks best. Hawaiian Airlines would look fine like this:

Hawaiian Airlines Fleet

Type	Aircraft	Seats	Notes
Boeing 717-200	11	123	Inter-Island Routes
Boeing 767-300	1	252	Transpacific
Boeing 767-300ER	15	252-264	Transpacific and South Pacific Flights

• But that format does not show the classes which appears to be considered encylopedic since so many articles arlready include this information. Vegaswikian 00:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I was the person who created the Hawaiian Airlines table... I thought it looked the best and it was plain and simple... although I do still believe Passengers instead of seats.--Golich17 19:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Over capitalization

One of the issues I have with the fleet table is excessive capitalization. We should ensure proper grammar by not overcapitalizing - eg: "5 orders" should not be capitalized if standing alone since it's a sentence fragment, and nothing past the first word of the sentence ('5' in this case) should be capitalized in a sentence. Also, "Short-Medium Haul Domestic Routes" is a sentence fragment, not the title of a book, and thus should be "Short-medium haul domestic routes". Thoughts? --Matt 00:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think most will concur with your observations. I would also avoid terms like "Short-medium haul domestic routes" unless and until we can get clear definitions as to what those terms mean. Vegaswikian 00:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your argument, and I have been changing many pages to the way you have suggested, as it is technically correct. One thing I think should be capitalized on the other hand is such terms like E.I.S. (Entry Into Service) as it is an abbreviation. I doubt we should lay it out like this: Entry into service (E.i.s.) That's not the correct way to layout such an item.--Golich17 04:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Most hits on search engines for "entry into service" has it non capitalized unless every other word is capitalized (for newspaper articles). Also, vehicles' weight is often abbreviated "GVW" even though it properly would be "gross vehicle weight". Acronyms are often upper case even when the words in it are lower case. In summary: abbreviations and acronyms are based on words, not vice versa. Although the acronym is capitalized, it doesn't mean that the words behind it are capitalized. --Matt 19:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment and would add that the word "routes" in the column of the chart called "routes" is redundant. We should standardized on the description of routes to keep it simple. Also, I prefer "(5 on order)" rather than "(5 orders)". I have seen both terms used. Finally, can we standardize on a way to list the fleet that contains active passenger aircraft, active cargo aircraft, historically used aircrafts, etc? I suggest using sub headers rather than table description. They are larger and listed in the TOC. user:mnw2000 12:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that (5 on order) uses too much space where (5 orders) does not. Even though that shouldn't be such a big deal, some computer screens aren't as big as others and it clutters up space which makes the viewing of this website difficult. Also, adding routes under the routes column is pointless. I have been deleting it out of many tables as it describes it in the column title. But, I strongly disagree with your choice to add passenger, active cargo, and historic fleets. Passengers fleets should be in one table, cargo fleet should be in one table, and retired fleet should be in one table, all under the Fleet area of the table.--Golich17 02:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no disagreements with your assessment. I simply want to standardize our approach. So we can sum it is this way

1) We use (4 orders) instead of (4 on order) to save width

2) We do not use the word "routes" in the route column to save width

3) We use seperate charts for passenger aircraft, cargo aircraft and retired aircraft fleets without subheadings

user:mnw2000 02:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

However if we use the more generic notes, then you should add this. Notes allows information beyond routes to be added. Vegaswikian 04:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)