Talk:Etihad Airways
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Relevance
I Edited the fleet list into the two separate entities i.e. the Cargo Division and the passenger carrying Division. 138.251.249.145 06:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Etihad Airways are getting worse and worse. They haven't any dedicated facility or seating for disabled passengers. 172.216.106.222
And what relevance does that have to the betterment of this article???? ARTooD2 04:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't. I just thought i'dd add it. 172.216.106.222
fair nuff:p...but they seem to have got better since the first time I flew them... anyhoo...aye... 138.251.249.145 13:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Maintenance of the page
The Etihad Airways Article deserves better maintenance as the alphabetical listings of its destinations were out of order before I fixed them, for a long time.--195.229.242.54 12:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fcous Cities/Secondary Hubs
I have removed the Focus Cities/Secondary Hubs from the table at the top of the article because Emirates is a competetive airline and won't allow Etihad to fly Dubai, which it doesn't according to Wikipedia's article on DXB; so saying, if an airline doesn't fly to the latter airport, then it cannot be a Secondary Hub of the respective airline.--195.229.242.54 12:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Logo at the top of he page
Would someone please change the logo of Crystal Cargo back to the original airlines in the table at the top of the page. Thank you --195.229.242.88 06:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Controversy Section
Why was this deemed "unencyclopedic" and removed? If you Google for the story, and click the "news" option on Google, you will find hundreds of newspapers around the world following the plight of 2 Australian drunkards who were detained in the UAE. With such vast international news interest, isn't that notable enough to be included in Wikipedia? If you want to see the original Controversy section that was deleted, it was created on 02:10, 6-June-2007 in the history section. I find the rest of the Etihad page to be unencyclopedic, as it is just an advertising brochure for Etihad (who probably wrote it). The controversial stuff is what makes Wikipedia interesting. 203.217.64.50 02:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Restored Controversy section. You can find it in the History section at the date 23:45, 7 June 2007. Slightly reworded this time, references fixed and more references added. It is a world first that someone has been fined for drinking aboard a flight. 210.84.40.121 23:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Written like an Advertisement
This whole Wikipedia Etihad page is like an advertisement. All the stuff about the classes and comforts aboard Etihad is identical to what is in Etihad's advertising brochures. I don't know why I would bother reading Wikipedia if I can get the identical page straight from Etihad's brochure. I have added an Advert tag to this page 210.84.40.121 23:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest AFD--Edtropolis 17:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- I don't believe the article should be deleted entirely. Etihad is a major airline and as such deserves a Wiki page along with other airlines of its size and status. But parts of the article should be rewritten so that it is not advertising. 203.166.255.9 02:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "A-380" Photo
How is it there is a photo of an A380 on the tarmac when the A380 isn't even scheduled for delivery to the airline (by the same article) until 2012!? If it is a rendered mockup, it should be so noted, or deleted. Noone is scheduled to have an A380 in service until October 2007. mercator79 22:15 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- In July 2006, Airbus sent one of the A380s they use for test flights (MSN004 with registration F-WWDD to be exact) to Abu Dhabi. As a sort of courtesy to Etihad, Airbus painted the front of the aircraft in Etihad's livery. A source (picture included) of this can be found here, for instance. When I say "painted the front of the aircraft", I'm actually lying, because the aircraft only wore removable stickers for the occasion. Nevertheless, the picture in question does show an actual A380, displaying Etihad colours on the tarmac of Abu Dhabi airport. Not only that, but the aircraft is scheduled to be delivered to none other than Etihad once the flight test campaign is finished (what Airbus is going to do with the aircraft between 2008 and the reescheduled [at Etihad's request] delivery in 2012/13, I have no idea, though). So it is by all means an Etihad Airways A380 on the tarmac in Abu Dhabi. Hope this bit of info is helpful :-) --afromme 20:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Article Too Big
Every time I return to this article it has grown bigger. But not with useful information. Just corporate babble about Marketing, and a Hotel Investment Conference. I want to see different things in the Wiki article to what is on Etihad's corporate website. 124.168.21.24 12:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit war — warning
As a specialised journalist, I do not have the same look at Etihad as anonymous or half-an's (IPs and such codenames ain't signatures) 89.242.124.167, GS350, 45HG23 (would you prefer another color?).
Wikipedia is no place for advertising: take a look at how American Airlines, the 1st airline in the world, is presented and look what you, afore-mentioned, are trying to do here… What makes Etihad so special, apart from particular advertising capability and three (?) good servants here. You may want to refer to the way Emirates is treated here, and you would be quite right, except that this one, too, may need some cleanup. Once more: Wikipedia is neither Le Bourget nor an agora for ads and counter-campaigns. What's more, Etihad ain't no major airline, whatever you pretend — how would you qualify, AA, BA, AF, JAL and a bunch of others, then? The sky's the limit!
Furthermore, I do not bias articles (whatever my opinion about an airline); you do just the contrary in various ways. You can see below miscellaneous (and mostly not anonymous) point of views which are not reflected in the article: «Etihad Airways are getting worse and worse», «What relevance does that have to the betterment of this article?», «they seem to have got better since the first time I flew them» (I personally have to add that it wasn't better on my last flight, five weeks ago…), «I find the rest of the Etihad page to be unencyclopedic», «This whole Wikipedia Etihad page is like an advertisement. All the stuff about the classes and comforts aboard Etihad is identical to what is in Etihad's advertising brochures. I don't know why I would bother reading Wikipedia if I can get the identical page straight from Etihad's brochure.», «Every time I return to this article it has grown bigger, but not with useful information: just corporate babble about Marketing, and a Hotel Investment Conference».
I ask for arbitration and mediation. — Іван Коренюк ψ Ivan Korenyuk 08:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- I took the liberty to edit the article - heavily. There is for instance no need to mention the "World Travel Awards" in the article, especially when there's a dedicated "Awards" subchapter. Furthermore, I condensed the subchapters on Etihad's classes. There is absolutely no need to detail, in pretty much the same terms a PR brochure would use, all the amenities offered in Etihad's different classes. You will not find this sort of info in any other Wikipedia article on any other airline. So I condensed it to general information on personal IFE and the availability of classes on different airplanes. Fleet info - no need to mention each and every order Etihad placed when there's a rather detailed fleet list. Also, A320s have not been added to the fleet yet and there has not been an official order with Airbus for A320s, although that order was announced. General policy here is not to list orders until they are firm, i.e. listed in Airbus' official books. As of 31-08-2007, there these list no A320 order by Etihad. However, Etihad has ordered one A330-300 which the article did not list so far. Restructured the article as well. There's probably still room for improvements, but I'm confident that the article in its current shape forms a decent basis for such improvements.--afromme 21:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] References
Anyone object to placing a references tag at the top of the page as the article lacks lots of references as indicated by the 'citation needed' tags at the top of paragraphs. Bthebest (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)