Talk:Cathay Pacific

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hong Kong Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Hong Kong To-do:
edit purge
  • Clean up all MTR station pages. They are literally all over the place. Two model pages are Tsing Yi Station and Sheung Shui Station. They each describe a feature special to the station, Station layout, exit, and connections, as well as neighbouring stations and the station "box".
    • We will also need plenty of updated pictures (e.g. removing all KCR-related images except those on the KCR article). Check that all pages have basically the same language structure as Tsing Yi Station and Sheung Shui Station. Links to location maps are good too. (Should also perform these checks on Chinese Wikipedia.)
  • Clean-up pages that link with TVB, especially its series pages.
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] Accidents and incidents

I wish someone could put the old accidents and incidents list back on. Although Cathay doesn’t have much accidents and incidents, it surely has more than just two incidents. Surely we don’t want to be like the guys like Korean Air, covering all the facts in their wikipedia page. I remember there was one incident that Cathay’s aircraft had a tail-strike. En51cm 04:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have found some information on accidents and incidents that cathay was involved, but I need some help with the editing.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/operator/airline.php?var=6962

The full list is on that web-page. Cheers. En51cm 14:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photographs

Those first two pictures are very similar. Are both really needed?

Yes, one is a longshot, the other is a closeup of the nose. Both have their place in my opinion - Adrian Pingstone 18:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Both are marred by a winglet from another aircraft covering part of the nose logo. The addition of another image at the top of the article makes this very cluttered. --Jumbo 12:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
It's very easy to be critical but to complain that a tiny bit of a winglet overlies the flight deck is silly. How disturbed do you think our readers are going to be by that! I took both those in question and my opinion is that, until better ones come along, those two will do just fine. Its good that someone bothers to put on pics so less nit-picking please because there was no angle which would have got that winglet out of my view. Your comment that the article is cluttered is strange, just look on down the article, there's acres of space for pics so just move one down into that area - Adrian Pingstone 15:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I upset you! They are actually excellent photographs. I looked through my own stock - I recently flew SYD-HKG-KIX-HKG-CDG on CX (in J, bliss!) - and couldn't find anything better. It's just that the thumbnails give the impression that the colourful winglet is part of the nose art. I didn't want to tread on anyone's toes by moving pictures around, but I'll go and do it now. I might separate your two photographs, because they do look a bit similar. I'm flying MEL-HKG-FRA on CX in a few weeks (in Y, gloom), and I'll see if I can get some shots then. --Jumbo 21:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CX 600-699 Series

Please note that CX has now utlilsed this series - it is used for CX693 HKG-PEN and CX692 PEN-HKG - both non-stop flights.

[edit] Route announcements

There are several lines which are apparently taken from press releases, announcing "the addition of a third daily service to Woop Woop", apparently inserted some time ago, as the dates referred to have passed. Perhaps these could be reorganised or deleted entirely? --Jumbo 21:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ZRH

Does anyone know why the service to ZRH has been withdrawn in 2001 (I believe)?

[edit] Shanghai Guangzhou

  • What does "Shanghai (Guangzhou)" stand for? olivier 11:12, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Hong Kong is independent member at civil aviation organisations and airport council, and maintains its own economic policies. It comes up with bilateral aviation agreements at its own. Hong Kong-mainland China and Macau-mainland China flights are considered non-domestic (i.e. international) and reaches international but not domestic airports, such as Pudong but not Hongqiao at Shanghai. Hong Kong, Macau and mainland China should each have separate listings.
  • Yes that may be true, but the destination listings all over wikipedia follow conventions whereby we list airports according to the countries they belong to, and HK and Macau are part of China. It is not a listing of independent airport councils and representation. Also, please avoid using terms like "Hong Hong, china," "Macau, China," and so on, because we are actually trying to avoid using redirects!--Huaiwei 10:00, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • "Hong Kong, China" and "Macao, China" are the official names that these two entities use to join international organisations. I don't mind using "bracketHong Kong|Hong Kong, Chinaendbracket" to avoid the redirects.
  • You said that listing should be according to countries that places belong to. Then Taiwan is part of China, though Taiwan is under the rule of another government. China including Taiwan is one country under two regimes. Why they're listed separately?
  • Would Hong Kong be listed under United Kingdom if it wasn't handovered? The same rule should applied for all territories that are under others' sovereignty, but is independent in all sense except national defense and diplomatic relations.
  • For the case of airports listing particularly, listing of HKIA and MIA under China would induce confusions, that Hong Kong-mainland China or Macao-mainland China flights are considered domestic.
My responses to each point above:
  • The official name under which Hong Kong joins international organisations has never been standardised. Some has it as Hong Kong SAR, China. Some say China, Hong Kong. To simply things, we refer to it as Hong Kong.
  • Taiwan's situation is clearly under contention, and that gives it special threatment, just like we dont classify Palestine under Israel either in general. Taiwan has never accepted the one country two systems form of government, and neither does it recognise Beijing rule.
  • A colony or dependency is different from an autonomous region of a country, and hence are obviously treated differently. We dont place Xinjiang, Tibet, or Nei Monggu as seperate entries either although they have some form of autonomy. Moreover, there is no standard level of autonomy accorded to various supposedly similar entities, so we cant be standardising this aspect of threatment.
  • If you feel there is a serious need to inform users that flights into and out of HK and Macau to Mainland China are considered international, then a paragraph explaining this situation would have worked wonders, which you have done already. Should there be a need to reconfigure the presentation of all similar lists thoughout wikipedia just to stress this one point?
In general, I hope you may engage in these discussions, and wait for a concensus to be taken before implimenting your edits across the site, especially when it is clearly under contention. Otherwise we will end up having to go after and remove your edits again if need be.--Huaiwei 13:46, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
My responses
  • Hong Kong, China and Macao, China are the standard name that the two entities use to join almost all organisations. Please look up on the WTO, World Meteorological Organisation and APEC websites. SAR is never included, and the order of China, Hong Kong or China, Macao is only used in Chinese (language).
  • Hong Kong and Macao are not autonomous regions, and are not like Xinjiang or Tibet. I would say it is like the relationship between Puerto Rico and United States to certain extend.
  • Theoretically and legally speaking, the PRC government in Peking cannot intervene into the two, though its legislature can scrap the SARs and take all the power back.
  • Taiwan has claimed over the entire China, and it keeps the title "Republic of China" (at least) until now. Obviously it is a part of China, although not under the rule of PRC in Peking.
  • Hong Kong and Macao shouldn't be regarded as part of mainland China, especially when dealing with immigration, economic and customs issues. They are separate and independent entities, and have the same status as mainland China. The Chief Executive of Hong Kong and the President of PRC attends APEC Summit with the same positions. I have no objections to list Macao and Hong Kong under PRC for diplomatic relations and national defense issues, but it IS inappropriate for other issues to list the two under mainland China for other issues.
-anon December 5, 2004, 14:07 UTC
  • I remember clearly that the Hong Kong contingent marched into the olympics stadium with the term "SAR" attached to their name. Informal references aside, is there an ISO or official document(s) indicating that Hong Kong should always be refered to as Hong Kong, China when refered to in international circles? And hence forth, are you saying we should consistently refer to Hong Kong as Hong Kong, China, in all references to the city?
  • Yes, a special administrative region is not the same as the kind of liberties given to Xinjiang etc, but where do we draw the line? To be honest, I find that overall, there seems to be this overwelming display of desires in threating the two SARS as thou they are independent entities in as many aspects as possible, and to say that the two SARS should be treated as thou they are independent in all economic-related issues is as good as practically every aspect of both entities, since for HK especially, its existance and survival is almost completely revolving around economics alone! And how about topics which cant be classified as easily? Education? Health? Sports? In fact, how the two entities should be treated as either SARs in their own right, or as independent entities, is proably going to be a major POV debate waiting to brew up.
  • The situation over Taiwan is not exactly unknown to most East Asian observors invluding myself. But to insist that they belong to the same country is obviously going to be an issue of POV. In general with regards to sitations like this, refering to it as either Taiwan or ROC is more then sufficient. There is no need to call it "Taiwan Province" for example.--Huaiwei 14:36, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Hong Kong uses the title "Hong Kong, China" to join the Olympic Games [1], Asian Games and football matches [2]. The Hong Kong team marched into the stadium with the name banner "Hong Kong, China" since 1998 Asian Games and 2000 Olympic. Hong Kong has its own football team and compete with other national teams. In the World Cup 2006 primary "Hong Kong, China" and "China, PR" were in the same group.
  • "Hong Kong" should be used in refering to the city, "Hong Kong SAR" or "HKSAR" should be used as a first-ordered administrative division of PRC, "Hong Kong, China" should be used in international events involving other sovereign states and territories. The same applies to Macao.
  • Yes Hong Kong and Macao are independent entities in all aspects except national defense and diplomatic relations. This is stated in the basic laws, the mini-constitutions, of the two territories. It is part of the "One Country Two Systems" principle. Both entities are granted autonomy on immigration, economic, etc. policies, and maintain their own currencies, with their own judiciaries. They are de facto operating like other states except for national defense and diplomatic relations. If you may know some sovereign states don't even have its customs and armed force. An example is Liechtenstein, which interest at the EFTA used to be represented by Switzerland (or Austria? gotta double check), uses Swiss Franc, Austrian railway system, and national defense is Switzerland's responsibility.
  • And it is true that Hong Kong and Macao have their own education systems, and their own delegations in sports events, respectively. Both SARs (not to be confused with SARS) issued their own passports.
  • I understand that it might be hard for other people to recognise Hong Kong and Macao are indeed unlike other provinces or cities even after the handover. Nonetheless this doesn't mean that they are just the same. To be frank, almost the entire colonial system is preserved, that the government of the sovereign country (London and Lisboa in the past, Peking now) do not intervene much.
  • sorry don't understand with "QUOTE since for HK especially, its existance and survival is almost completely revolving around economics alone ENDQUOTE"
  • Why don't we use "Taiwan, ROC" then? It is the way they put their name on products exported to other countries. "Taiwan Province" is an administrative division under ROC, and there ARE some parts under ROC not on Fuchien (or Fukien) Province, and it still having that province in its administrative division. And according to ROC's constitution, it still claims over entire mainland China (and outer Mongolia, well). I don't see anything wrong to say ROC and PRC are both part of China, and China is one country, at least it's not wrong at the current moment. Nobody can predict tho.
-- anon 17:06 December 5, 2004 UTC
  • To sum up my responce to the above, I no longer see it as you reiterating just how independent Hong Kong is from China to reconfigure the way the city should be refered to across wikipedia. In fact, you seem to prefer to hightlight aspects whereby the two are independent, but not those which clearly state that they are but one country. We are talking about countries here all along, not (economic/political/educational, etc) systems. In all, I feel that if you wish to pursue this further, especially when it is as controversial as this, you might be better off suggesting this as a topic to be brought up in our standardization pages (do refer to guides like Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Disambiguation, as well as other related pages). Wikipedia does not function by a tit-for-tat, tug-of-war of edits when disagreements arise. Hence, I find myself chaing after your edits and undoing them, especially when you do not seem to be following proper procedures before redefining things in your fancy. You have been flouting too many "rules and guidelines" along the way, if no one has pointed that out to you yet.
  • As for taiwan, just let me ask this: Why do you write "Taiwan, ROC", and not "Taiwan, Republic of China"? To put it simply, you appear to be claiming standardisation when there are none. And again, this is the simple reason why I have to revert your edits again. I really hope you may at least respect our "codes of operation" before advancing further with your edits. (Thanks for correcting a typo on my user page thou! :D )--Huaiwei 13:59, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Please refer to Wikipedia:Naming and listing conventions (Hong Kong).
  • For "Taiwan, ROC": I was just suggesting an example. "Taiwan, ROC" is what I found on the packings of products from Taiwan. Yes "Taiwan, Republic of China" would be fine. (Tho I prefer the formats "Taipei, Republic of China (Taiwan)" or "Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China.")
--anon 10:10, December 7, 2004 (UTC)
Erm....I think you might have misunderstood the use of the conventions pages. These rules are supposed to be born out of discussions with everyone. Not cast in stone by one contributor and presented as such. As a result, I end up having to add a note at the top, as well as encourage discussions in the talk page instead.--Huaiwei 10:24, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thank you. --anon 14:25, December 7, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Flight numbers

  • The flight number list is very messy. Some Wikipedians edited it and some of the airport names are invalid links. I've just edited a part of it. I suggest everybody do it like this, e.g. When you need to link Paris Charles de Gaulle to the page "Charles de Gaulle International Airport", please link to them by their IATA or ICAO designators, like
  • "CDG|Paris Charles de Gaulle"→Paris Charles de Gaulle, or
  • "RJAA|Tokyo Narita"→Tokyo Narita instead of

Paris Charles de Gaulle or Tokyo Narita.

  • Also, CX 9240, CX 9241, CX 9248 and CX 9249 are not codeshare flights within Europe, but are CX flight numbers for the Aeroflot HKG-SVO service.
  • Another thing is, I think we should add the Comair codeshare numbers into the list.

KK kap 07:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flight codes

Will some clever person please move the huge list of Flight Codes into a new article and, of course, put a link to it in the existing article. Perhaps "Cathay Pacific flight codes" would be a good name. Scrolling down through that massive list is very irritating - Adrian Pingstone 10:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea, but like Singapore Airlines, we had a lengthy list of flight numbers, but it got deleted due to it being too long and listing every flight number run by SIA. As for this article, it does not apply with the Airline WikiProject and in their criteria this is CX-cruft. So any split will have the same fate as the SIA article. You may like to see the AFD here. --Terence Ong (T | C) 10:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand the problem. So can the Flight Code section of the article be deleted? Are interested parties in agreement to the deletion? - Adrian Pingstone 16:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I do think it is somewhat bothersome to list the flight codes in this article. (Maybe it should be moved to WikiTravel?) But like the Singapore airlines example, you don't want all of that hard work being deleted.Herenthere 23:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but hard work may well have to be deleted if the article quality is worsened by the material. Like I said above, I found scrolling down through 6 screens-worth of flight codes, to get to the material below, very irritating. Our only concern must be the quality of WP not how much work someone put in. In any case I believe it should have been obvious that so much stuff on one topic would be too much - Adrian Pingstone 19:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
It should be moved to another article or just simply deleted. It is very irritating scrolling down the list. And also, that information is not even necessary, you can get that info at Cathay Pacific website. FlyAirCanada 10:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Then maybe we should just give that link to the CX webpage in the Trivia or some other section. The flight number list is detrimental to the quality of this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WasAPasserBy (talk • contribs) 00:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Merge

Marco Polo Club should be merged into this page. It is another page on a frequent flyer program that is non-notable in itself. The only info that is likely to be put on the page is a list of benefits, participants, etc., which is directly available from Cathay's website and probably violates WP:NOT. DB (talk) 07:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Please comment here - type support or oppose and a brief statement of your reasoning.

OPPOSE -- The guidelines under WP:AIRLINES state "Frequent flyer program participation should... have their own articles if they are large or well known." Parnell88 19:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
OPPOSE -- MPO now is the FFP for both CX and KA so should have its own article. 64.69.108.254 03:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
SUPPORT -- As with larger US airlines, their frequent flyer programs are merged into the airline article. It is easier to read and access this way without having to change pages.--Golich17 23:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
OPPOSE -- This article needs to be referenceable from the pages of two airlines (dragon/cathay) so should be kept separate. it would be strange to find the ff programme for dragon air within the cx article. 131.111.8.102 19:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • You can do two things: (1) Respect the guidelines; (2) Oppose the guidelines.
  • If you respect the guidelines then the only question to ask is whether Marco Polo Club is "large or well known". It is not the largest but I would doubt anyone would argue it is neither large nor well known esp. given the recent addition of a second airline, Dragon Air, into the equation. There is potential for expansion (that is why stubs exists) and speculating what info might be put into the page in the future is a thin argument for keeping/merging the page.
  • If you oppose the guidelines then one can (1) do whatever he/she wants (this is the course advocated here by perpetuating these threads), or (2) he/she can try to change the guideline through consensus (also tried but with little interest so far).

Be creative in writing articles but follow the rules cause they are there for a reason. Parnell88 19:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not a discussion over guidelines in the Wikiproject; that should be discussed on the appropriate talk page. This is a discussion on the article about the Marco Polo Club. Guidelines under a Wikiproject are not "rules". If there is a consensus to remove an article, then it doesn't matter that a project says it's ok to have it. Besides, the project does not say this article must exist. The Marco Polo Club is not particularly large or well-known. As I mentioned in a previous discussion, there are many frequent flyer programs that are significantly larger than Marco Polo Club, but articles on them were all removed. These included Mileage Plus, OnePass, and Sky Miles. DB (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I will add that the article meets none of the guidelines specified for products and services in WP:CORP. DB (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shareholding Realignment

Is the separate section on shareholding realignment really needed? It seems to have been taken word for word from CX's webpage, and it is already previously mentioned in the "History" section.WasAPasserBy 00:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Note relating to the Reversion of the Edit by Russavia claiming that Swire Pacific is not the parent company. Refer to Note (d) on page 34 of the Annual Report here: http://downloads.cathaypacific.com/cx/investor/2006_Annual_Results_EN.pdf which clearly states that Swire Pacific owns approximately 54.35% of the voting rights in Cathay Pacific, which makes them the parent company. Paul Christensen (Hong Kong) 02:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

Why has the date of foundation been edited to 1947? Cathay Pacific's own website at http://www.cathaypacific.com/cpa/en_INTL/aboutus/cxbackground/history states: "American Roy C Farrell and Australian Sydney H de Kantzow founded Cathay Pacific Airways in Hong Kong on 24 September, 1946."Paul Christensen (Hong Kong) 06:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The 49'ers

Clearly as drafted this doesn't meet the Neutral Point of View requirement. Moreover, is an industrial dispute really sufficiently notable for inclusion? I am not convinced. Paul Christensen (Hong Kong) 06:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Nfpjay edited my NPOV tag without comment so I have put it back, because this section clearly is contrary to Wiki NPOV Policy which is summarised as: "Neutral Point Of View. An NPOV (neutral, unbiased) article is an article that has been written without showing a stand on the issue at hand. This is especially important for the encyclopedia's treatment of controversial issues, in which very often there is an abundance of differing views and criticisms on the subject. In a neutral representation, the differing points of view are presented as such, not as facts."

This section is clearly written from the point of view of one side in the industrial action and therefore violates the above policy. I do not have sufficient details to be able to rewrite the section neutrally, and in any case since an industrial dispute several years ago is hardly notable except to those directly involved I suggest that the most appropriate course would be for this section to be deleted.

Nfpjay - please do not simply remove the tag again without addressing these comments. If you are in a position to do so then by all means have a go at redrafting to meet NPOV guidelines. Paul Christensen (Hong Kong) 06:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Paul, without trawling through the extensive history of changes, I'm not aware what balance the article had in April 2007. My opinion is that the article is relatively neutral and factual. The overall page content has far more trivial details than the concise history of The 49ers. Furthermore, I believe its relevance remains valid due to the ongoing legal action and the associated legal action that reached the House of Lords to modify UK Employment Law --Spartacusmillenium (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a lot better now than it was in terms of neutrality, which is why I haven't put the NPOV tag back. Notability I'm still not convinced about, but I don't feel strongly on this. Any other views welcome.Paul Christensen (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, so we may as well have the content correct - the AOA has a maximum commitee size of 21, and I've entered the correct name - two points that Mr Hopkins didn't quite get right. Gardner has now been replaced.--Spartacusmillenium (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Codeshare Agreements

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am not aware that Cathay Pacific has any codeshare agreements with Mexicana, Philippine Airlines and Qantas (although CX operates a codeshare flight to Rome for QF). Ghfj007 17:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

PR919 (HKG-CEB) is CX2921 but I can't immediately find flights operated by MX or QF with CX codes. Paul Christensen (Hong Kong) 02:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, CX does not operate flights for Mexicana. I will delete it from the list. Ghfj007 05:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:CX777-300ER.jpg

Image:CX777-300ER.jpg 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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 03:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flight Polar One

As a user edited the flight number of "Polar One" (The first flight arriving the present Hong Kong International Airport) from CX6889 to CX889, I would like to confirm, is the flight number really CX889?

Here are some online material I found using Yahoo, which are probably not copied from wikipedia:

CX889 now operates from New York-JFK to Hong Kong via Vancouver, and CX6889 now operates from Beijing to Hong Kong. [3]

PeterCX&Talk 16:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I believe it was called CX889 at the time of the flight. Now the nonstop flight is CX831. Joblio 06:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
My point was, was the flight specially called CX6889? Thanks --PeterCX&Talk 10:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of refs in Destinations

After noticing a lot of edits by anonymous IP addresses in the Destinations section, I saw that there were no references at all in that section. This makes it hard for people like me to verify information, such as recent edits by 218.102.156.40 and 210.177.82.157. They added "On November 15, 2007, Cathay Pacific will add a second daily non-stop flight to New York-JFK with the new Boeing 777-300ER aircraft (CX840/841). By then HKG-JFK flights will be increased to 3 flights daily." If you're adding a second daily non-stop flight to JFK, then how will your total HKG-JFK flights from JFK be 3? Two is not equal to three. -Herenthere (Talk) 17:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

  • JFK is also served by a HKG-YVR-JFK flight in a 747, so it would be the second non-stop flight, but third flight to JFK. I believe that the flight is on their timetable already, so do we need to source it and every schedule change to their timetable? Joblio 21:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not on their downloadable timetable, only the schedule if you do a request on their website. I agree - until the schedule is published it's a good idea to source these news items. Joblio 21:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] San Francisco as a focus city?

I think there must be a mistake by putting San Francisco as a focus city of Cathay Pacific. I would welcome any comments. Ghfj007 05:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just trying to find a route map on the CX website, but couldn't. But, personally, I'd think that Vancouver, BC although a CX hub would be a better focus city listing. Luke! 06:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, this is difficult to say that. Because actually a numbers of CX's destination are operated by airlines partners or codeshare service. This means that there is no exact a CX plane to go to those destinations and these are served by other partner airlines. In the cities listed in the FOCUS CITY boxes such as Taipei, Bangkok and Singapore, according to the web site of Cathay Pacific[4], there are CX planes flies via these places to another city. For example, CX planes flies to Fukuoka and Osaka(Of course there are also non-stop flight)via Taipei. Again, CX planes flies to Colombo and Karachi via Bangkok. However, the case of San Francisco is quite different. CX planes do fly to San Francisco but they do not further fly to other cities. Instead, there are partners airlines or codeshare services of CX in San Francisco to fly to destinations of American cities and Central America. I should say that I agree with Ghfj007 and I think that the article about FOCUS CITIES should state more clear about the definition of "FOCUS CITIES".(Addaick 06:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC))

Dubai could also qualify as a focus city-flights from there to several cities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.118.224.89 (talk) 15:46, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Comments are welcome. (Addaick 12:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC))
Flying nonstop from San Francisco to its hub in Hong Kong does not make it a focus city. Cathay only has one destination from San Francisco is to its hub in Hong Kong. I don't think that SFO should be a focus city if it only flies to its Hong Kong hub only. Bucs2004 23:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Done. Bucs2004 has removed San Francisco already. (Addaick 08:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

[edit] First Flight of 777-300ER

3 October CX 418 See here for a trip report: http://www.airliners.net/discussions/trip_reports/read.main/110235/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Christensen (talk • contribs) 06:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Focus City

Why Singapore isn't CX's focus city? —Preceding unsigned comment added by David1993923 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Because CX flies to only 1 non hub city from Singapore. Bucs2004 (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cadet Pilot Program

Cathay Pacific and their 100% subs. Dragonair operate a Cadet Pilot Program. If you example for Cathay Pacific/Dragonair, is it possible to work later or after finishing the program that the company wants you to fly the other carrier, or not? Dagadt (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strange rendering

When I view this article in FireFox, I can see a sequence of strange 'edit' blocks that move around depending on the window size. does anyone else see that? I can't see anything wrong in the article. Scolbath (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incident vs. fleet

If the article is to mention the low-level flyby incident, shouldn't it be in the incidents section instead of the fleet section? That doesn't seem like the logical place for it.--Father Goose (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is the 'Services' section needed?

This section reads like it was written by a Cathay advertising executive, and in fact, as originally comprised, was taken largely verbatim from the Cathay website. Over the past few months I have made some minor edits to this section to try and make it more informative and neutral but these edits have frequently been changed back or watered down. Is it really necessary to have such a detailed description of Cathay's in-flight entertainment systems and its refurbished aircraft interiors, that, in reality, seems like little more than free advertising for Cathay?Spinner145 (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that Cathay Pacific, and many airlines, is a service provider. So there is nothing wrong in describing its service. Also that section quoted some opinions from passengers, so I don't think it is very advertisment-like. – PeterCX&Talk 04:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I agree that it is fine to describe the services, but I don't think the current section does this well. Most Cathay flights still have the older long-haul interiors or the regional layouts, which each have different seats and AV systems. Only providing info on the new, premium product, largely using Cathay's own ad copy, doesn't seem like NPOV reporting but more like free ad space. I have, as I mentioned, tried to make these section more informative and neutral, but these edits are often changed back to more Cathay friendly tone (see, e.g., most recent edits to the sections on business class seats). So I wanted to bring this to the discussion page rather than starting an edit war with people continuously trying to make the article as favorable as possible to Cathay.Spinner145 (talk) 05:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe the services section should be kept -- however, the "seats" section seems to be taken word from word from Cathay's website. Edit: Will try to fix.WasAPasserBy (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I had also tried to improve the section previously; I like the edits you made, thanks.Spinner145 (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)