Talk:Frontier Airlines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Colorado, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Colorado-related articles to a feature-quality standard.

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.

Additional information and associated projects or task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met
	This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

1 Split
2 Route systems
3 Employee Relations
4 Focus Cities
5 Code Shares
6 The Slash "/"
7 Advertising and Livery
8 Routes to Memphis
9 citation needed tag fixed
10 Separating out Lynx and Republic

[edit] Split

I believe this should be split into an article about the 1994 Frontier Airlines and the 1950 Frontier Airlines -- they're two separate companies, and should have their own articles. --Cliffb 19:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I vote against a split, assuming the accuracy of the article's statement that the new company was created by executives of the old company. The only reason to split would be if there were no institutional connection between the old company and the new company. Based on what I read here, there's a strong connection, even if they are, in fact, two different companies.CoramVobis 20:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Given the fact that the old airline has a current presence since it was merged into CO, there is some logic to splitting these out. The two airlines have different categories and codes. Vegaswikian 05:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Another thing to add is that if we split the first frontier off it might stimulate some additions to it. Right now the article is kinda thin on the first frontier.—Cliffb 05:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Route systems

The pros and cons of hub-and-spoke vs linear route systems does not seem like useful information about Frontier Airlines, and it reads like a half-baked criticism and an uninspired rebuttal. Unless sources can be cited and some relevance to Frontier be shown, I propose reducing it down to just a mention that Frontier uses a hub-and-spoke system, with a brief appositive clarifying what that is. mjb 04:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever is covered in an article like airline hub should be included via a link. No need to repeat the general information. If that article or the ones it links to need to be expanded then it should be done there so the information is available to any article that has a link. Unique material could go in either place based on what it is. Vegaswikian 05:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Employee Relations

I went ahead and deleted this section as it did not cite sources and was very close to libel. If you can prove the allegations against Frontier (which can be seen in the History) Re add it with sources cited. EnsRedShirt 13:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Focus Cities

Frontier does not even have the term "Focus City" in its annual report. It does mention that they are focusing on point to point opportunities. Since they service a vast majority out of DIA, the next possible city to be named a focus city is Cancun, which Frontier does not call a focus city, and only has seven destinations, including DIA. I am strongly against any city with less than five destinations being called a focus city, and I think any focus city should have at least ten destinations. This leaves Frontier with only the DIA hub. —Cliffb 23:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the Denver Post has recently released this statement regrading FFT's focus cities...Sox 23 03:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Code Shares

Under the original set-up, Frontier JetExpress and the codeshare with Great Lakes were bundled together under the same heading, even though the two operations are completely seperate. I felt that each operation deserved its own subheading.

[edit] The Slash "/"

I cannot believe this. While fixing a reference link, I added a trailing slash to another link. Then two people go through the bother of editing the article for the sole purpose of removing the slash. Removed to save bandwidth? Are you serious? To save a single character in the article, you added how many characters to the edit history? Not to mention the bandwidth you soaked up in editing the page. Jeez. But let's continue delving into the absurd. Your browser normalizes "omitted slash" URIs to include the trailing slash per RFC3986 (you will find "http://www.frontierairlines.com/" listed in your cache). When you later tell it to go to "http://www.frontierairlines.com" again, it takes extra compute cycles to determine that those two strings, though different, are equivalent (RFC3986 6.2.3). My oh my - all the lost productivity!
In disbelief that someone would edit just to remove the slash, I made an edit just to put it back. Don't worry. I won't do so again. But I will do this! //////// Zubdub 05:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Grow up Sox 23 21:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Roger that, sox23. Lacking a sound argument, hurl an insult. Zubdub 04:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You are arguing over the removal of a stupid "/"! Don't you have better things to do?! Sox 23 21:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It takes at least two to argue, you know. No, apparently I don't have anything better to do. Just like you apparently had nothing better to do than to remove the slash. I'm done now. Zubdub 02:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

ok Sox 23 03:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. While I can kinda agree that the additional edit just to remove the slash was a bit much, but reverting the removal of the slash just was just as crazy if not more so in my book. Seriously, if you're that protective of your edits I think you should review the following text that we see all the time: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Remember don't sweat the small stuff. It goes to the same place, so why make a big deal of it? —Cliffb 23:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

True, reverting the removal of the slash was rather silly. I was just so stunned that someone bothered to edit just to remove it, that I figured "OK. I'll play." In fact, I notice that you made two separate edits that consisted of removing a single slash. That comment about not being so protective of one's edits cuts both ways you know. Zubdub 04:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Play? Is this a game? Seriously, is this really worth the time to comment and revert? If you're in need of something to do I have a paper that I could use some help on. In editing picked the "best" edit between two different editors, IMHO, and went for consistency. —Cliffb 07:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Were you in need of something to do when you made two separate edits for the sole purpose of removing a slash? Apparently. It's plain and simple - the trailing slash annoys you and "grown up" sox23, and the omitted slash annoys me. Period. I added the slash as part of a separate edit (making the link appear as people see it in their browser, by the way), then since it annoyed sox23, he had to remove it. I clicked a couple times with the mouse and reverted. Then you made your two crucial edits. Bandwidth? Yeah, right. I look forward to seeing more edits from you saving single-byte download speeds. Sheesh. Zubdub 16:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You guys might want to read this, since it would also apply to trivial edits such as this. The bandwidth argument is absurd. It takes a lot more "effort" for the servers to add/remove the slash than to just leave it as is. If you want to add or remove it, incorporate it into another edit. Furthermore, this pointless conversation takes a lot more bandwidth than a single slash would. DB (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

DB thank you for enlightening me. I'm going to take that knowledge to use Wikipedia's resources more efficiently. Zubdub, I'm done arguing with you. Although I will note for anyone who is following this that I do not appreciate your aggressive tone. Cooperation, not conflict is the better way around this. —Cliffb 04:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Cliffb, I did get more worked up than I should have. But I felt as though I had blundered into another Wikipedia "fiefdom". They're all over the place here. Articles that one or more people start to feel possessive about as if they own it. That's good to a point, because they quickly deal with vandals and spammers. But blunder into one as a newcomer to a particular article and you're quickly made to feel as if your well-intended contributions aren't welcome. So when I made a good-faith edit that also included adding the infamous slash, I saw the slash immediately removed. I got irritated by such a trivial edit and reverted it, then saw the slash once again removed. I thought "OK, I've blundered into another fiefdom where one doesn't dare put a slash at the end of a URI."

I made another good-faith effort and removed the redundant link to Frontier's web site. Again, my edit was quickly reverted, citing Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines as the law of the land. The thing is, that project page also says "Unnecessary repeating of this information [referring to information in the infobox] in the body of the article is discouraged." and then needlessly repeats the website link way down at the bottom of the page. (I would argue it is already much more visible where it is in the infobox.) The project page also says there should be no links to opinion web sites (POV certainly not being encyclopedic) and yet there is clearly a link to an opinion web site.

So I will make all concerned happy and just take this page off my watch list. Take care. Zubdub 22:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advertising and Livery

Good start there, I have been meaning to add an advertising section to the article.. It just needs to be expanded like who is the ad group behind it, when it started, different specials, like Send Flip to Mexico, and the current Denver's favorite Animal.. EnsRedShirt 07:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It better be Hector. He makes squishy noises with his cheeks. Zzz345zzZ 08:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Routes to Memphis

Do the routes to Memphis from more than just Denver (such as Orlando and Las Vegas) qualify it as a focus city? Alex 01:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say that MEM would not be considered a focus city because FFT only has 4 daily departures from the airport (2 to DEN & 1 each to LAS & MCO) - I don't think MEM is FFT's new focus city Sox 23 01:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems they are trying to diversify locations outside of Denver, California, & Mexico. Memphis is considerably different from those markets, and Southwest (the dominant carrier in LAS) doesn't serve MEM (yet). --Beta Centauri 20:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] citation needed tag fixed

I added reference to fix a "citation needed" problem about the old Frontier executives starting this Frontier. I did not tag the problem nor did I write the statement that was questioned. Archtrain 15:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Separating out Lynx and Republic

I've made some initial passes at separating out information from Lynx and Republic. They're their own airlines and only in Frontier's article are the associated regionals included as they were here. I don't think this is done, but it gets a little trickier from here.. —Cliffb (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)