Talk:Air France

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

France Portal
Air France is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments, explaining the ratings and/or suggest improvements.)
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
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.


Request that the aircraft in the image "Air France Lockheed Constellation" be properly identified; see imagetalk for reasons why I disagree with the Connie designation.

Reply: It's now correctly identified....Thank you

Contents

[edit] Intro

Reverted the previous change of Air France's official name to Société Air France from Compagnie National Air France. Air France's partial privatisation a couple years ago resulted in a change of its legal status. Hence, it became a Société. Its used to be a Compagnie National for half a century during which it was majority government-owned. (Compagnie National is the French equivalent of a UK Crown Corporation.) Pimpom123 14:54, 1 November 2007 (GMT)

The information about Air France's European passenger transport is very out-of-date, a relative importance and is not quoted. How did Air France reach a 25% market share?!--88.68.193.91 (talk) 10:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Livery Section

I restored the livery section. I know its a stub, and it doesn't provide much information, but especially with an airline as old as Air France a livery section is an important piece of history. I don't have the knowledge to expand it, but I'm leaving it in there to suggest it to be added. —Cliffb 04:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

== Fewer incidents are listed than shown by other sources, for example Aviation Safety Network.SilasW 22:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Callsign

Just a note that the airline callsign is and has been for a long time AIRFRANS [1] it appears to need a revert every few days. Please dont change it unless you can cite that the official ICAO callsign has been changed. Thank you. MilborneOne 22:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Air France Call Sign

I think the Air France Call Sign is "Air France" (and not "Airfrans") just because the Air France articles in all other languages cite the callsign "Air France", and every people say that the callsign of the company is actually "Air France". I also tried to contact the own airline to confirm the information with them, but there is no "Contact" link on their website. I later found this website, on which the Air France callsign cited is "Air France": [1]. You may think that the callsign is "Airfrans" due to pronounce confusion ("Air France" and "Airfrans" have the same pronounce). Although, if you want a better proof, I can get it. Thanks and good night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.15.197.142 (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it is not a matter of thinking that the Air France callsign is AIRFRANS the official source of callsigns ICAO Document 8585 says it is AIRFRANS and the FAA website has a copy of which states AIRFRANS [2]. So unless you can find a non-amateur reference that cites that ICAO Document 8585 has changed then it should stay as AIRFRANS. MilborneOne 21:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Officially, both ICAO and the FAA, the world authorities on aviation, cite the callsign as AIRFRANS, as due several hundred aviation websites online which one can find by looking up "AIRFRANS CALLSIGN" on google, or "AIRFRANS ICAO"; for example airodyssey.net, which has been an aviation reference site for about a decade now, lists it as AIRFRANS, as do countless more similar counterparts. The mispelling is most likely done so that the French Crews could correctly pronounce the callsign in English seeing as English is the language of Aviation, France in French sounds more like Fraunz, which could be confusing in radio communications, hence AirFrans which in French sounds just like the English pronouncation of the airline's name is used to prevent miscommunications over radio frequencies (seeing as Air France is the correct name in both languages, French crews may default to their natural pronounciation, thus this "mispelling" was done to change that). Overall, however, ICAO and the FAA lists the callsign as AIRFRANS and they are both the official authorities for aviation above all other hobby sites online superceding both aerosite.net and airodyssey, and since they side with the AIRFRANS version, then that is the correct way to spell it. Perhaps, Milborne, it would be a good idea to cite your link next to the callsign in the infobox for future reference by other users, and as for the anon, it is often quite possible that internet reference sites are ill informed or make assumptions, Milborne has found possibly the most accurate source, unless you can get Air France itself to state otherwise. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 22:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference 4 ain't working

Reference 4 is not working. The link needs to be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.148 (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

Have corrected factually wrong information and cited relevant sources. Pimpom123 16:35, 12 October 2007 (GMT)

Have also moved the part dealing with Concorde's retirement to a new sub-section of the "Fleet" section. The new sub-section is entitled "Fleet history" and gives a brief overview of important historic milestones in Air France's aircraft fleet development, e.g. that they entered the jet age with the Comet srs. 1, commenced sustained jet operations with the Caravelle and 707 and that they were one of the biggest operators of the 747. The reason I moved the part dealing with Concorde's retirement to this new sub-section is that it makes a better fit because that part primarily deals with fleet-specific aspects, as opposed to general history. I have moreover deleted the speculative sentences relating to the "ulterior" motives of the Air France management to retire Concorde prematurely, thereby forcing British Airways' hand to do likewise. These sentences alluded to some kind of unproven conspiracy theory between Air France's senior managers led by M. Jean-Cyril Spinetta and their compatriots among Airbus's top management at that time. I am of the opinion that we should only write about things that can be proven through relevant references and should not indulge in unsubstantiated speculation, even if this can be referenced. Furthermore, in my opinion, we should try to keep in mind that any articles we write/co-author in this medium should be of general educational value, rather than primarily catering to special interest groups, such as Concorde enthusiasts in this case. Pimpom123 15:04, 22 October 2007 (GMT)

[edit] ProseTimeline

I've now added {{ProseTimeline}} twice, and each time its been removed by User:Narayana golfchampion without an edit summary as to why. This article needs some serious work to improve its flow and style. I think the template should stay until the article is improved. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


The reason I removed the tag is because, in my opinion, it is not justified for the following reasons:

1. a timeline only explains WHAT has happened.

2. it does not offer any further background information as to WHY something has happened, which may be important in the given context.

Furthermore, attaching specific dates to prose in a history section helps keeping it in chronological order.

Therefore, I am of the opinion that this tag is out of place, as far as this section of the article is concerned. User:Narayana golfchampion 16:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the meaning of the template. The whole history section, in its current form, reads like a timeline/list of events:
    • Paragraph 3: On DATE, event. One sentence long.
    • Paragraph 7: In DATE, event. One sentence long.
    • Paragraph 8: In DATE, event. One sentence long.
    • Paragraph 10: On DATE, event. Three short sentences long.
    • Paragraph 12: On DATE, event. One sentence long.
    • Paragraph 13: On DATE, event. One sentence long.
    • Paragraph 14: On DATE, event. Three sentence long.
    • Paragraph 15: On DATE, event. One sentence long.
    • Paragraph 16: On DATE, event. Four sentence long.
The template is not asking for dates to be removed, or reasons for events to be removed, or anything else to be removed. It is prompting people to improve the section by asking them to expand the paragraphs beyond one sentence, or combine paragraphs by subject, or use variety in their language(not just "On DATE, event."), or anything else they can do to improve the article. I, personally, don't want it to be turned into a strict list, but would like to see it changed out of its current list format. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
User MacInnis, why then don't give it a try yourself? Pimpom123 17:00, 11 February 2008 (GMT)

[edit] CityJet

Is CityJet subsidiary that should be added to the subsidiaries section?--83.71.99.169 (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)