Talk:Canberra International Airport

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It has been proposed below that Canberra International Airport be renamed and moved to Canberra Airport.

The proposed move should have been noted at Wikipedia:Requested moves.
Discussion to support or oppose the move should be on this talk page, usually under the heading "Requested move". If, after a few days, a clear consensus for the page move is reached, please move the article and remove this notice, or request further assistance.

Maintenance use only: Add to WP:RM {{subst:RMlink|Canberra International Airport|Canberra Airport|REASON|section={{{section}}}}}
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.
Flag
Portal
 Canberra International Airport is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Canberra.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Caution - contains propoganda!

Note that the Canberra Airport staff are editing this page to remove content they disagree with.

Several edits from 203.22.237.174 (mail.canberraairport.com.au) have removed large sections of the article.

This article should be removed totally if they continue to astro turf it.

[edit] Update: Caution!!!

203.17.154.218 continues to undo others' edits and introduce errors of fact and make unsubstantiated claims. Pdfpdf 03:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International traffic

The article presently says:

The airport today can handle traffic from Melbourne International or Sydney International (Kingsford Smith International), where weather conditions restrict landings, and is the focus of a third major hub in South-Eastern Australia for international traffic.

Is this true (especially the last part)? --ScottDavis 15:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I think you're right Scott. While the airport owners might aspire to one day being the 'third major hub for international traffic in SE Aust', there is very very little sign of any international traffic at Canberra 'International' (with heads of overseas Governments being the possible only exceptions. I think that even the Prime Minister leaves from Sydney when he goes on international trips. It's possible that Newcastle and Avalon receive more international traffic than Canberra. Canberra is capable of handling Boeing 747s and can handle traffic from Sydney or Melbourne, but I doubt that this happens very often, at least not for international flights. (I think that the last 747 to land at Canberra was carrying the Chinese President).

User:Adz 11:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I seem to recall I heard that the runway is long enough to carry large jets such as the 747, but it's limited width means that excesive garbage is blown off the grass on either side nesistating cleaning of the runway. Therefor the airport while technically able to carry 747s is not able to do so on a regular basis. I wonder if this information is available anywhere on the web, or if it is a load of badly remembered garbage? This is also mentioned in the Canberra article. Martyman 03:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
you may be right. A while ago, i think when Bill Clinton visited, the runway wasn't long enogh for 747s, so he had to fly here in some other sort of plane. Realising that this was an issue for heads of state, they extended the runway, and last year the presidents of the USA and China landed in thier 747s. ... but they may have needed to clear the runway first. I think the point you raise warrants some research. Maybe best to remove it from the main Canberra article for now and leave it in here until somebody is able to clarify it. Adz 04:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I've seen 747s (or whatever Air Force One is called) land and take off at Canberra. The length of the runway is more than ample for safe operation. I understand that the runway has been widened since privatisation and is able to carry 747s without debris fouling the runway. However, it seems that there may be various political games being played here. Both Bushs and Clinton visited Canberra in their jumbos, along with associated widebodies, but the Queen was denied permission to fly a chartered BA 747 in and out of Canberra in 2000, supposedly on safety grounds. Instead her aircraft landed in Sydney and she was flown to Canberra on one of the government's light VIP transports. I'll have to see if I can find a source for this.
It would be interesting to see how Canberra would cope with an influx of international flights if traffic were diverted from Sydney. The facilities for passenger handling, baggage handling and customs and immigration processing are quite inadequate for anything like a fraction of Sydney's routine capacity, quite apart from the problem of where to park the aircraft. --Jumbo 04:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
As of March 2006, the runways can land 747s - but each landing degrades the runway pavement, to the point where they can only land a limited number of 747s per year. They're expanding and upgrading the runways to be able to land 747s on a more regular basis. Source: http://www.canberraairport.com.au/pl_rw_mdp.htm 202.161.13.40 22:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stub status?

This article currently has {{canberra-stub}} and {{Airport-stub}} at the bottom. However, it does not appear that this article is, in fact, a stub. It may be in need of some expansion, but i don't think it qualifies as a stub. If there are no dissenting voices between now and the next time i think of it (maybe a week) i will remove them. -- Fudoreaper 21:57:44, 2005-08-25 (UTC)

Looking at the definition of stub, it appears that 3-10 sentences are a standard, more for more complex articles. I'd say that this article passed stub status sometime back, as there is a reasonable amount of information. I'll remove the stub status next time I edit, as I'm planning on putting in some more information on history. --Jumbo 22:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Sounds fine, Jumbo. I'll leave this in your hand. :) -- Fudoreaper 01:57:44, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
Thanks! I've been looking at other articles and the Canberra International Airport site for information. I've asked CIA to review and possibly expand the article. More pictures and a logo would be handy. --Jumbo 02:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Its more than a stub. I'm happy for to to remove it. Adz 02:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CIA response

I've had the following response from Canberra International Airport:

thank you for your email, which was passed to me for attention.
Let me first congratulate you on the effort you have obviously put into making the listing comprehensive and totally up-to-date.
The only slight error I can see in the entire listing is that Brindabella fly 3x daily to Newcastle and that they start next week a new daily (mon-Fri) service to Traralgon in the LaTrobe Valley.
I attach an aerial photo of the airport for your information. Unfortunately I can't help with the logo - we have a policy of not providing our logo externally.
Hope this is of assistance,
Alex Ananian-Cooper
Manager Aviation and Environment
Canberra International Airport

I'll upload the picture under the GFDL for the time being, but I would like guidance from others on the status of this image. --Jumbo 07:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Jumbo, I think the bast tag to put on the photo would be CopyrightedFreeUse --nixie 04:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, nixie. Bless you for that! This whole copyright business is a puzzle. I've modified the image accordingly. --Jumbo 04:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
That photo would definitely not be CopyrightedFreeUse (which is essentially the same as releasing it to the public domain) since the Airport has not agreed to allow the photo to be used for any purpose, including commercial redistribution and/or modification. The image should be tagged as Fair Use and moved from the Commons back to the English Wikipedia. Kaldari 22:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove canberra category

I've removed the Canberra category for this article as part of the effort to tidy up the Canberra/ACT categories]]. (See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canberra#Category:Canberra) It's felt that the Canberra category is too cluttered and that as it is a small jurisdiction, many of the articles relating to the City should probably sit under Category:Australian Capital Territory and its subcategories. If there is strong feeling that airports should contain the category that relates to the city they are in then perhaps this warrants some discussion, either here, on on the Canberra project talk page. Adz 07:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Brand Depot

I have tagged the Brand Depot article to be merged with the Canberra Airport article at the Brand Depot page. I feel that the proposed development is not yet notable and does not warrant an article of its own. I think a mention here will suffice, at least until it is built, and possibly after the fact as well, depending on its notability when it is complete. -- Adz|talk 00:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brand Depot

Brand Depot is independent of the Airport - probably best in my opinion to leave it separate, just as you would leave any other companies associated with the Airport separate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Webfive (talk • contribs) .

But as an individual article it may not pass wikipedia's requirements for notability and therefore be deleted all together. Wikipedia is not a venue for free advertising. --Martyman-(talk) 07:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It's just going to be a shopping centre, and not a big one. It's notability comes from the fact that it is situated on airport land and is consequently not subject to normal planning measures. --Jumbo 05:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Managed by...

According to the CIA website, it is managed by Capital Airport Group Pty Limited. --Jumbo 20:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes by 59.167.40.48 on 21 June 2007

I have felt it necessary to undo some of 59.167.40.48's changes because they are unsupported. I would really like it if 59.167.40.48 (or anyone else, for that matter) could reinstate them with supporting evidence. At the moment, they are simply opinion. I will reproduce them here so that reinstating them is easy.

During peak hour, there are intense traffic jams both within the airport and along the access roads - Supporting evidence?

- in this time commuters can spend up to 30 minutes. - Up to 30 minutes doing what?

In a recent state election it was a minor issue - with the incumbent supporting the development. The challenger, David Madew, failed to convince the electorate that the development was inappropriate. - When is recent? Presumably NSW election? Whose judgement is it that it was a minor issue? Who is the incumbent? What relevance has this got to the subject "Location"?

The proposed housing estates - That one is a fact!

the most contentious, Tralee, is under the departure paths of the aircraft and some arrival paths.
vs
the least contentious, Tralee, is considered by the Canberra International Airport group to be under the departure paths of the aircraft and some arrival paths (despite the development being nearly 10 km from the runway and the planes several thousand feet above sea level).

Ouch! Both are opinion!! How does this one get resolved!!!
BTW: There is no such thing as Canberra International Airport group. Canberra International Airport. Canberra International Airport Pty Ltd. Capital Airport Group. Capital Airport Group Pty Ltd. But no such thing as Canberra International Airport group.

My opinion is that "Accidents" should be a level2 heading, not level 3, and I have changed it accordingly.

I think the references are a bit messy. I've tried to tidy them up. Pdfpdf 12:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More vandalism & propoganda

203.17.154.218 continues to undo others' edits and introduce errors of fact and make unsubstantiated claims.

I've placed information on that talk page, but have received no answer or acknowledgement, so now I've stopped being polite and I'm just reverting them. Pdfpdf 03:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] b737-476 incident

I have just read the Incident Report of the above indicent on the ATSB website (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2002/AAIR/aair200205179.aspx). The statement on the Canberra Airport page was inconsistent with the ATSB report, which I have corrected to reflect the ATSB report.

I note further that this is not an accident, but rather an "incident", as defined in the ATSB report. Hence, should this be moved to another heading "Incidents", or should it be deleted?

Also, while on this subject, it strikes me that this is an odd list of "accidents". There are two aviation accidents, one non-aviation accident and one incident (not an accident at all, by anyone's definition). If the level of accidents on airports are consistent with other airports of similar size, then it's likely that there are many more accidents than listed here, and hence this is an incomplete and somewhat arbitrary list.

Is there a policy on what is supposed to be done? I've looked at other Australian airport pages, and I can't find any listings of accidents! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.108.182.144 (talk • contribs) 01:49, July 19, 200 (UTC)

Good catch on the correction, and the heading of accidents regardless of an ATSB definition should stay. Most people understand the word, so as long as the content is written correctly it won't make a bit of a difference. As for the incompleteness of the list, if you have the time please feel free to add the information into the article. Perth_Airport#Accidents gives a good overview of how such content should be written and referenced. If you cite sources from ATSB investigation reports, please use Template:ATSBLink for this purpose. Thewinchester (talk) 03:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canberra airport caught censoring this article

According to http://wired.reddit.com/wikidgame?offset=225#top an IP address traced to Canberra Airport has been editing this article to "to hide accidents, traffic chaos plus a general shining astroturf." The evidence is aparently at: http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=203.22.237.174&ip2=&ip3=&ip4= This isn't very cool behavior and would make the airport look really dumb if it was, say, confirmed and got into the Canberra Times. --Nick Dowling 08:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008 - Recent accidents and incidents and Proposed services

[edit] Recent accidents and incidents

There was a "Recent accidents and incidents" section, but I removed it because none of the incidents were recent.
So, what is wanted and/or needed? Pdfpdf (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The incidents are part of the history. Wikipedia should not be condentrating on the recent events, but should have an all of history approach. So any significant events from any time in the past should be included here. The article is not intended as a public relations tool for the airport. So my opinion is that the section should not include the word "recent" in its title. Incidents where people died should be included as being important. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You make a good point. However, this topic is covered inconsistently; e.g. Melbourne Airport#Accidents and Incidents mentions only one incident, Kingsford Smith International Airport doesn't mention any. Pdfpdf (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that's an argument for improving the coverage of incidents at other airports rather than removing those at Canberra. Gimboid13 (talk) 05:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I disagree - it's not an argument one way or the other. It's just an observation that coverage is inconsistent, and addressing the use of the word "recent" in the title. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Despite the fact that there must be dozens of incidents, very few seem to have found their way onto WP pages about airports. This issue must have been discussed before somewhere. (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force??). I've posted a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force#Incidents at Airports. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
And, very quickly, I got a reply:

[edit] Accidents and incidents for Airport project

The Airports project has just agreed a form of words for the inclusion of accidents or incidents in airport articles. Thought it may be of interest -

  • Accidents or incidents should only be included if:
    • The accident was fatal to either the aircraft occupants or persons on the ground.
    • The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport.
    • The accident invoked a change in procedures, regulations or process that had a wide effect on other airports or airlines or the aircraft industry.

MilborneOne (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incidents at Airports

I've noticed that the reporting of incidents on WP pages for airports is very inconsistent. Are there any guidelines? Where can I find them? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If you look a couple of lines above, the criteria for airport articles is listed. Also appears at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports. MilborneOne (talk) 10:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Pdfpdf (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed services

A number of people have removed this section, without explanation, except "Wiki ian" who said "remove unverified information". As the information has been there less than a month (in one case, 2 days) and was flagged with "citation needed", I believe "Wiki ian" is being a bit too quick off the mark. What do other people think? Pdfpdf (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say keep it there unless there is some reason to think it is incorrect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Destinations Table

Pdfpdf has raised some concerns about the Destinations Table. Firstly, in regards to examples of the table in use; Singapore Changi Airport, Melbourne Airport and Brisbane Airport to just name a few. In regards to why, well, it makes a lot more sense at multi-terminal airports, like those linked, as you choose whether to sort by terminal, or airline, or destinations. But even for CBR, it does have an aestetic and organisational advantage over plain flat destinations, as well as alphabetic sorting of airlines. So, after addressing Pdfpdf's concerns, I shall restore the table. Mvjs (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm. I'm unconvinced that the table adds any value for Canberra. Largely, for a one terminal airport like Canberra, it just looks stupid.
Regarding sortability, there's no terminal number variation to sort by, the table is already in sort by airline, and you can't sort by destination for two reasons: 1) you've switched off sort on that column, and 2) the data in that column is not in a useful format to sort.
But even for CBR, it does have an aestetic and organisational advantage over plain flat destinations, as well as alphabetic sorting of airlines. - I have no idea what you are talking about:
  • aesthetic - Yeah, OK, the table looks a bit prettier.
  • organisational - There's nothing to organise!
  • alphabetic - It's already alphabetic!
So, after addressing Pdfpdf's concerns, - Pardon? You haven't addressed any of my concerns. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind Mvjs' table but Pdfpdf's table was good also however I didn't like the aesthetics of it. I also agree about the Terminal being useless since there is only 1. Bidgee (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I didn't like the asthetics of my table either; I was referring to Mvjs' table vs the text that was originally there. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Changing subject - Can we delete that third column please? Pdfpdf (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Again for the record, I didn't create the table. It was created by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canberra_International_Airport&diff=211426456&oldid=209995672
I agree that the terminals column should be removed. Mvjs (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Canberra International Airport → Canberra Airport — The airport is known as Canberra Airport on it's website, Government, media and the Airport itself (the building). The Airport also has no direct international flights —Bidgee (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose - I have to disagree with you on the fact that the airport identifies itself as "Canberra Airport". The website, as well as the logo states "Canberra International Airport". Mvjs (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - At the time of adding the request the old site had Canberra Airport. Issue now is that it classes itself as a International Airport but has no International flights and the media class it as Canberra Airport. Bidgee (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment - I think on the rationale that the website is Canberra International Airport as well as all the branding (I haven't been to CBR for a while but last time I was there the parking tickets had Canberra International Airport on them) we should honour that in the title of the article. Although it may be colloquial to simply call it Canberra Airport and even though there are no international flights, the airport's name is Canberra International Airport. It is common practice at a lot of airports to call themselves international when there are no international flights. (a great irony is Melbourne International Airport is a domestic airport in Florida, whilst Melbourne Airport is the international airport in Melbourne. Mvjs (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment - Last time I was at Canberra Airport was in December 2007. The Airport itself had Canberra Airport but I'm unsure about the tickets for parking. Bidgee (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments: