Talk:Avianca
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Notes for suggested expansion of this article
According to this site: Airline History
- Original name of the airline was Sociedad Colombo-Alemanos de Transportes Aereos (SCADTA)
- Apparently the full name of this airline is (or was at one time?) Aerovias Nacionales de Colombia
- Name change to Avianca took place in 1940 after a merger with something called SCAO
Kevyn 10:10, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Chalk's Ocean Airways
Unfortunately, Chalk's Ocean Airways began operating several months before Avianca in 1919, but after KLM. Considering it is an official scheduled airline, recognized by IATA and has been so since then with its only days not operating being during World War 2, the claim the Avianca is the first airline of the Americas isn't entirly accurate. Being of Colombian descent, don't think I'm trying to descredit the airline, but I'd rather keep the article accurate than spare feelings and resentment of other Colombian nationals. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 20:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 1919 or 1940?
Am I one the only one to notice a contradiction between two claims made in the article, i.e., Currently, Avianca holds the title as second oldest airline in the world still operating under its original name, second to KLM, and The airline was established in June 1940 by the merger of SCADTA and Servicio Aéreo Colombiano? The info box states it was founded in 1919, not 1940, by the way apoivre 21:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
There's definitely a problem, but I'm not equipped with the knowledge to fix it. It seems, from what this article and the one on SCADTA--the latter of which is a bit of a mess, by the way--say, that Avianca only became known as such after the 1940 merger. If this is the case, then the claim earlier in the article that Avianca is the second oldest airline in the world (after KLM) still operating under its original name would be false--since Chalk's Ocean Airways would predate it. But I don't know enough about the merger to do anything about it. I'll research a bit and come back to the page if I find anything. Buck 20:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've looked into it, and it seems--much to the unhappiness of many of my fellow Colombians, I'm sure--that the real story is that Avianca didn't exist under that name until 1940, which means that this "flying under the same name longer" business doesn't apply to Avianca after all. Too bad, I guess, but it's better to have the story straight, right? I'll make the relevant changes. For more info, check out this[1] web page (in Spanish), which seems to get the story across in a more or less coherent way. Buck 20:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Accidents
I dont think it should be said the accidents are low for an airline of this age
They have lost 3 Jet Aircraft in there history to pilot error, and compared to the likes of Qanatrs which was founded a year later, which has never lost a jet, and many other airlines established in that time, there record isn't very low
220.237.34.224 16:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
It's meant to say that for an airline that's been part of a country with such a turbulent past, it's had a very low count. Qantas, being #1 in those terms, has come from a country that hasn't had to deal with the amount of domestic terrorism that a country like Colombia has, while other airlines in countries with such pasts have experience much worse hijackings and malcious attacks. For an airline that had to deal with gang plots to bomb aircraft foor three decades, losing only three jets does deserve this mention. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 16:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fokker 100
at the time Avianca only have 4 Fokker 100 they are still waiting for the other 9 to be delivered.
[edit] FEATURE ARTICLE
I THINK IN MY OPINION THAT WITH SOME EXTRA LINKS THIS ARTICLE COULD QUALIFY AS A FEATURE ARTICLE. User:ColBog
It needs some internal links, like a notes section (see: Footnotes), that's going to be one of the major objections if this is put up for FA now, also the images need to be organized and spaced out some more, they're rather cluttered, then you also have to do a bit of a wording rewrite, grammar is good, but wording tends to lag in some places. Also, all the new service announcements and speculated aircraft purchases need citations to back them. There needs to be an external link to a reliable source stating that these destinations and/or aircraft are being considered or have been announced. I suggest taking the article through peer review first and seeing how it fares there, that should give you a lot of pointers on what to trim before taking it to FA Candidacy. Good Luck! -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 00:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Just to check up...
Hi. I have taken a look at this page and made a few changes. Whilst it is a long article, there are some things which may need to be sorted out. I have made these changes -
- Accidents on Avianca aircraft have been significantly low for an airline of its age and location within a nation that has struggled with drug trafficking and organized crime problems. - removed. Very much a value judgement and would rather leave this out of an encyclopedia. Let the reader decide - it seems like someone may try to justify these actions.
- In the 1990s, after the death or arrest of various traffickers at the hands of Colombian police, Avianca was able to regain its status as one of the safest airlines in the world. - Unsourced statement without proof. Removed
- They are for the exclusive use of those enjoying our Business Class ... - removed whole paragraph about lounges. Sounds like either copy-paste or advertisment. No-no.
- I have removed the news section -- this is not WikiNews. All that should be covered in the History, etc. anyway
- Removed notes section -- speculation.
Someone may want to take an ever closer look at the article -- to make sure that its totally fixed.-- Chris Lester talk 16:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Subsidiaries
I think that the term "Subsidiaries" is misused in this page. In order to become a subsidiary, there has to be a parent-owned relationship, in which the parent company owns at least 51% of the subsidiary; there is also administrative parenthood required to be called a subsidiary, since the parent company has to regulate or control the administration of the owned institution. A subsidiary is different in significance compared to affiliated which in this case reflects more clearly the ownership situation of the airline. Avianca´s parent company is the Synergy Group (SG), at the same time SG owns the shares of other companies like Ocean Air, VIP Ecuador, etc... The fact that Avianca belongs to this conglomerate, does not mean that these airlines are its subsidiaries since Avianca does not own them. These companies are only members or affiliates from the same economic group.
Regards,
200.89.6.215 17:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)MSevilla
[edit] new livery
when did avicanca update its logo? it must have been in the last year or so, no? 71.234.109.192 (talk) 08:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)