Talk:Aerolíneas Argentinas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION 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.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Transport in Argentina.

If you would like to participate, you can improve Aerolíneas Argentinas, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.
High This article has been rated as high-importance.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.



Which is the goal of these unsigned, "personal" comments made in spanish (and left untranslated), in an encyclopedia written in english? Can anyone please explain? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 12:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Comet Picture

I like the picture, but its a BOAC comet, not an Aerolinas Argentinas one. Anyone else noticed this? --w2ch00

[edit] Fleet

I don't think that stating that the 747-400 being put in service are used but "modern". They are used and old. The 747-400 is an airplane that has almost 20 years since launched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.217.226.71 (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fleet/Destinations info all wrong

OK so someone is messing up with the fleet info. We don't fly or plan to fly to Asia, nor have any 773 on order. Check the news for the latest fleet announcements made by Marsans (so not AR). Also there are less 747s operational (3 -400 and 1 -200), the 340 fleet should be sub divided in 4 -200 and 1 -300 for making it clear, and we certainly don't have 35 737s working! This is not a simple rant, I edited the page but it came back like before, and I can't make any editing anymore, for whatever reason. Oh, Having 3 flights a week to Bogotá/Auckland hardly makes them FOCUS CITITES!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.114.249.226 (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Whisper To Me, I don't know how to reply by PM. Fine, keep the cholera part if you think it's worth it. But either you or someone else is messing with the fleet info, and worst, adding wrong info about future destinations like ASIA. How come? do you people have any idea of what you're doing? now that I call vandalizing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mal karma (talk • contribs) 06:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the answer is to find a source (I.E. the Aerolineas Argentinas timetable), cite it (give a URL), and *revise* the destination list. For the fleet, find a source for the new fleet information. The Aerolineas Argentinas website is a Wikipedia:Reliable source, so please use that for destinations. I do not know if the fleet info is also on the AA site. WhisperToMe 06:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


There is no timetable. The destinations can be found at the website. And while so is the fleet info, trust me, we don't have that many aircraft operational. Just give me a proof that we are going to fly to asia. Yeah, we, I freaking work there. Don't tell me to find a URL or a source when a lot of info is simply wrong and made up. I am not vandalizing, I'm correcting the wrong info. VERY WRONG INFO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mal karma (talk • contribs) 06:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the link, sorry but I don't know how to post properly.

http://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Aerolineas%20Argentinas.htm

Remember, the MDs were transferred to AU in exchange of some 732s, so they do not appear, and any aircraft is ordered by Marsans, not AR, meaning that those planes may come in different numbers, if come at all. Mal karma 06:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong information

The firm incurred massive debt, and operating profits were not realized. Iberia bought from Aerolíneas Argentinas two 10-year old Boeing 707 aircraft for the price of US$1.57 each.

Those were some cheap aircrafts. Is that information correct? James Hetfield (talk · contribs)

I don't recall real figures, but it was widely commented that Iberia transferred capital from Aerolineas. It would be nice to have a source for the fugures quoted. By the way, sometimes a "nominal" value is used in transactions of this type (need to find facts, eg when the USAF ceded Sabres F-86 to the FArArg). Regards, DPdH (talk) 12:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] "Neutrality" tag - Why?

Can anyone please explain why this article is tagged as "non neutral"? I've read it and could not find an "advertisement" style, nor any evicence of a "tendency" being supported. Maybe quoting/referencing is not adequate enough, but the content does not seem (IMHO) to support any aprticular point of view.
Having said that, I couldn't find also in this discussion page any rationale supporting the current "tagging". Maybe it would be adequate to replace these tags with one related to "Cleanup Required". Regards, DPdH (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever actually flown this airline? This is too positive about an airline that is largely perceived(by the majority of its passengers) to be poorly run and has very poor passenger service(cancellations, delays) and a very old fleet(one of the oldest in the world). John

    • Wikipedia is not a vehicle for people to give subjects positive nor negative views. If there is a link with a percentage of late flights for Aerolineas then you can put the percentage here and provide the link, but plainly saying it is one of the worst at anything, that is point of view. That said, those were the only lines where I saw the POV tag could be placed for, and I removed them, it would be more appropiate if you said "according to (source+internet link), only 5 percent of Aerolineas' flights go on time."

Antonio Sexy Pervert Martin

Here you go, dont really see the point though because somebody keeps editing this article by removing anything negative. http://www.expediacorporate.com/daily/edit/alerts/October/2007_November8_ARCancelsFlights.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.240.146.75 (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

So? it's only one link saying some very old news. This page can easily become an AR bashing forum if things like that are allowed. Besides, I don't think most people editing here travel AR much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mal karma (talk • contribs) 03:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Much being the appropriate word because one flight with AA is enough, I'll never go back, LAN's service is far superior and a heck of alot more reliable. Rgs Patsy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.240.146.75 (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)