Talk:BA Connect

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.

Contents

[edit] Move to BA Connect

This is the name of the airline as of today and therefor it makes sense to rename the article. However because somebody was over keen before I cannot do a simple page move. Thanks/wangi 09:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I can see no objection, but please leave a redirect. --GW_Simulations 19:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I've just changed my mind. British Airways Connect would be more in line with naming conventions on the subject. I still agree with a move, in principle, though. --GW_Simulations 20:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not called British Airways Connect though, it is actually going to be called BA Connect, with the BA officially being meaningless. Aircraft and merchandise will all display BA Connect (rather than the previous 'British Airways'), and the company itself refers to it as BA Connect. I favour the rename/move. --Ayrshire--77 20:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed, it's BA Connect. Anyone over on the Airlines or Airports WikiProjects that's an admin and could just do the move? wangi 20:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to CambridgeBayWeather it's now been moved/wangi 14:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Past Regional Operations of British Airways

This appears to be more complex that just calling is British Airways Regional as prior to the forming of BACX is was not refered to as such, rather reference was made to British Airways Manchester, British Airways Birmingham and British Airways Scotland.

When Loganair moved away from its association from British Midland and joined up with Manx Airlines as part of the British Regional Airlines (partly owned by Michael Bishop - CEO of British Midland), British Airways Scotland (and its ATPs named after Scottish glens) were part of the BA Scotland fleet. However these ATPs were dispensed with and a new series registered in the G-MANx series with Shorts 360 and Jetstream J31 and Jetstream J41 formed the new setup. The first five Embraer ERJ-145EU in the UK then joined the fleet at the newly opened Southampton based. For example the previous Loganair Jetstream 41 based at Glasgow for the Southampton route (in 1994)was replaced with a Southampton based ERJ145 (by 1998). It is this base which BA Connect announced the closure of on 26 July 2006.

At some point BA Manchester incorporated British Airtour Boeing 737-200 aircraft (early 1990's) possibly coinciding with the withdrawal of the BAC1-11 from the BA fleet. By the time BA Scotland was incorporated into BRAL, BA Manchester started to replace its Boeing 737-200 with 737-500 (in the G-GFFx series). THese subsequently were swapped with the BAe146 of Cityflyer when BACX was formed.

The 737-200 fleet of BA Birmingham were replaced with Airbus 319. As part of the re-organisation of the BA fleet associated with the formation of BACX, the Airbus 319 fleet (G-EUPx series) went to LHR, the Boeing 737-436 at LHR (G-DOCx series) went to LGW to join the others already there. The BAe146 at LGW then went to BACX to BHX and MAN. The "non-standard" Boeing 737-400 series (previous with Dan-Air) were withdrawn subsequently from BA service.

Pencefn 18:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] G-BRYZ

Several on-line lists are showing G-BRYZ (c/n 464) as a DH8-202. It is in fact a DH8-Q311. I have flown on it several times and observed it on other occaisions. It is of -300 series length. the -200 series has a shorter fuselage. As a final check I have looked at the UK CAA registration database G-INFO and this show the aircraft as a -311 -- Stewart 10:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sale to flybe

In the next few months, BA Connect will cease to exist. I would suggest that the BA Connect article is maintained as is to reflect the then historical company that had existed through from the formation or BA Citiexpress (i.e. the purchase of BRAL and combination with Brymon and the BA Regional operations).

Any thoughts -- Stewart 10:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to see this page retained, however I would be inclined to move it back to British Airways Citiexpress as this name was used for a longer duration. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 16:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Would agree that the content of this article on the history of the airline should be retained. It would also make sense to rename it back to Citiexpress once the BA Connect brand disappears. Thanks/wangi 22:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually retaining BA Connect article would be more appropriate as BA Connect will be an organisation that existed and had its own history aside from its BA Citiexpress upbringing. JulianHensey 12:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Low Visibility Operations at BRS

I am not sure this is the place to record this data. If it believed it should be then I suggest that given the snapshot given which I have just looked at the link given, the I would expect equivalent items to be added to articles for Eastern, Air Southwest, Flybe, the airline going as OL, Thomas Cook - in fact all the airlines apart from EZY and FR (do FR fit thier planes with Cat III landing equipment? I do think that the low visibility issue is one for the airport article. -- Stewart 18:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

BA Connect Fleet vs Easyjet fleet - Somebody explain why this is relevant or encylopedic, different aircraft are certified for different things, even aircraft with the same avionics can have different company operating mimimum height vs visibility. Why compare the landing category of BA Connect to Easyjet at one airport on one occassion. I would suggest this paragraph is removed MilborneOne 23:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with MilborneOne. In the article it says "...are not certified to the same low visibility category ..." but there is nothing to back that up. It could depend on the company requirement/rules. As an example, where I work we have two different airlines, both using B737s. But one company follows the NAV CANADA rules for landing/depart while the other has their own requirements which are stricter. This causes them to miss more often and has nothing to do with the aircraft certification. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CambridgeBayWeather (talk • contribs) 2006-11-07T23:40:02 (UTC)
An intersting one, like others i'm left wondering about the relevance of the issue - why compare the EasyJet fleet to the BA Connect one at all - they're use different classes of aeroplanes to start with. The reference used is a primary one (the dry stats) and leaves me thinking of this as original research - is there a source out there drawing the same easyJet vs. BA Connect conclusions from the data? Ta/wangi 09:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

BA Press office confirms - their Emb aircraft operating at Bristol are not able to land unless they can see 100ft above runway, and have an RVR of 300 metres or more. EasyJet can land with 50ft vis above runway, and have an RVR of 100 metres. This effects the operation into Bristol especially on the worse days.

Yeah, but what's the relevance to the BA Connect article, and is that a published source? As I said above the airlines use very different fleets, you expect different operating characteristics. Thanks/wangi 16:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

BA Connect flights cancel more often than Easyjet. Whether an article on "the demise of BA Connect" is or would be an interesting sub topic is debatable? JulianHensey 17:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow - what's the relevance of comparing BA Connect to one airline in particular? What's the point in comparing two airlines which have very different fleets? Every airline in the world has different operating characteristics due to the different fleets they operate and the airports they operate into. But most importantly we're not here to do research. And that worries me about your suggestion about the "demise of BA Connect" too, what demise? We can include history on airline, but the sale of an airline is hardly world changing. Remember this is an encyclopedia, not a news article. Thanks/wangi 21:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incidents and Accidents

I have just removed two of the entries because they are not notable, just the things that happen to different aircraft fairly regularly. I am also tempted to remove the 14 Aug 2005 aquaplane incident - again nobody hurt. Just checking if watchers think that is notable for any reason. MilborneOne 12:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Incident and accidents must have verifable and linked sources please if they are factual there is no issue with reporting them in the history of the company. JulianHensey 12:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that incidents and accidents must be verifiable and sourced, but this is an encyclopedia not a list of everything thats happened to the airline. Incidents with aircraft happen all the time I dont think this is the place to list everyone of them unless notable (persons injured or killed, or had an effect on the industry, regulations or procedures).MilborneOne 12:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future of this article

Following the take-over by Flybe, I suggest that this article is now tidied up, and possibly renamed. --Stewart 08:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tidy Up

The company has now been taken over by Flybe and no longer exists as such. I suggest that article contains the history of the company from the creation of British Airways Citiexpress up to the integration of services into Flybe at the end of March 2007. --Stewart 08:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title

The company was called British Airways Citiexpress for a longer time than BA Connect. I suggest that this article is retitled as such. --Stewart 08:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:THlogo.gif

Image:THlogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aviotech

User Av2007 has left a note on my talk page relating to my removal of the paragraph about Aviotech. Aviotech is a company set up by former employees of BA Connect who now do engineering support for BA Citflyer. I removed it as not relevant to BA Connect as it happened after the takeover by Flybe and also looked like advertising or self-promotion. Av 2007 has said that as it is the only company set up from the remains of BA Connect that this is not only relevant but also important information to be in the BA Connect history section. Just to repeat I disagree with their sentiment but have brought to the talk page to see if anybody has other opinions please. MilborneOne 11:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)