Talk:Hong Kong International Airport

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hong Kong International Airport is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
July 2, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted

Contents

[edit] older comments

Changed 'dismantled' Kai Tak to 'retired' since the majority of the structure is there and functions as a bowling alley, car sales showroom and golf range. Fuzheado 07:01 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Skytrax survey

Can somebody please kindly add the following? I've tried to put it into the article but the administrators keep reverting.

==Awards== Skytrax - World best airport [http://www.passengersurveys.com/Airport/APT_2004.htm Source]

Singapore Changi Airport has also got a list of awards.

I don't see the problem with this. It looks like appropriately referenced information from a plausibly legitimate survey with a surprisingly high number of respondents. I guess there is a bit of a bias to some of the world's newest airports, but that is fair enough - they probably do serve the regular travellers well.
The editors reverting are not listed as Wikipedia:Administrators, just logged-in, named editors. Although vandalism and odd self-promotional edits often come from anonymous IP editors, a great many useful edits come from anonymous IPs too. (Even so, administrators don't have any special credence in editing most pages, they just have the ability to do some house-keeping tasks that aren't generally possible.) Does anyone care to explain the thinking behind the reverts? -- Solipsist 22:44, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks Solipsist. I don't know why it was reverted either. But obviously my edit was not welcome by the one who reverted it. Would anyone please kindly put it back into the article for me? Thanks in advance. -- 11:30, December 10, 2004, UTC
Well lets wait a little for any alternative views. Two different editors reverting often means there is a good reason - I just don't see it. -- Solipsist 12:35, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I guess it would be better to put it back and see whether to keep or to remove. -- 14:12, December 10, 2004, UTC

I don't find the award relevant for the purposes of an encyclopedia. Even then, leaving it as its own section makes the section a perpetual stub. Seconds should ideally be at least two paragraphs long. --Jiang 22:37, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would have thought an awards section is useful enough information, as long as it contains genuine high profile awards. As our anon says, Singapore Changi Airport which is a strong Pacific Rim competitor, has a fair sized awards section. On the other hand, Schiphol Airport, which frequently used to win business traveller awards, doesn't. But I agree, if we only have one award to mention, its hardly worth having an Awards section, unless this the standard style for airport articles. I figured Chek Lap Kok would also have won an architectural award (Foster often gets them, and there are usually enough to go round), but the best I could find was Ove Arup getting the 'The Structural Steel Design Awards' in 1999, and Foster & Partners getting the 'Architectural Ironmongery Specification Awards' in 2000/2001 — I'm not sure these are worth mentioning. So the real question is, what is the standing of the Skytrax award, or rather what is the highest profile traveller's award and has it ever been given to HK International? -- Solipsist 06:35, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There are quite a lot of awards and recognitions. But I only meant to add a stub temporarily, and kept being reverted while I am working to expand it. The Airport official website has got a page on the awards. Go check it, but it's a really long list :-P.
Chek Lap Kok (CLK) has the largest passenger terminal building, and is the most expensive airport construction project, according to Guiness World Records. It is also one of the top ten construction achievements of the 20th century Source.
CLK is also the airport handling the most international passengers and international cargo (domestic excluded). -- 10:47, December 11, UTC
Not so sure about the accuracy of this line. It is quite well known, that the busiest international airport in the world excluding domestic traffic is London Heathrow.--Huaiwei 14:45, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thakns for pointing out a typo. It's handling the third most international passengers and the most international cargo, excluding domestic traffic. -- 19:50, December 11, 2004, UTC
Btw, the former HKIA at Kai Tak was also the third busiest and busiest.

Interesting that this is discussed, but anyway, I am divided on this issue. I agree that the text in the Singapore Changi Airport page pertaining to wards is a tad over-drawn, especially when it seems to add mentions for each award garnered during that period. However, I agree with some of you, that mentioning the kind and quantity of awards garnered by the airport can be a good resource worthy of an encyclopedia, so long that it is presented with a balance of being comperhensive, yet being salient. I would, for example, strongly consider editing the list for Changi, by merely listing the number of awards gathered by year, and only selectively picking out the most prominent awards for a small eleboration, or if it has been consistently awarded.

We should, at the same time be dilligent enough in providing quantifiable parametres to the data presented. A single line of "Skytrax - World best airport" is clearly insufficient, when it dosent even state the year the award was conferred! It is no wonder that the line was deleted, in my opinion.--Huaiwei 14:41, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well it was reverted even when a hyperlink of the source was added. -- 19:49, December 11, 2004, UTC
That is hardly sufficient as far as wikipedia is concerned. It is not the link which is important. It is the contents writtern FOR wikipedia!--Huaiwei 06:45, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I was just trying to do the same as other airports. -- 03:14, December 13, 2004, UTC

OK, well the link to the airport's own awards list [1] showing that it came first for four years running in Skytrax surveys persuades me that it is not nothing, although it is probably biased to airports which carry a large number of passengers (I suspect the survey is conducted by handing out leaflets at various airports and most people will just put down one of the two airports they are travelling between). Probably, the only other award worth mentioning is the World Travel Award in 2000. I'll put these into a paragraph in the article. -- Solipsist 08:24, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just a moment. That commentary that the airport is the busiest international cargo airport....is there a source to validate it first? It might be a good idea to indicate the year for these stats.--Huaiwei 09:01, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Search by Google - "busiest international cargo airport" -- 17:26, December 12, 2004, UTC
Changed the text to reflect that HKIA is the busiet cargo airport annually since it opened in 1998. Now can anyone else give some quantified data in terms of years for the international passengers rankings?--Huaiwei 02:37, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox in template

Burgundavia changed the infobox format by using the template, but some of the data were missing after the change. — Instantnood 07:15, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Refer to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/infobox. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Infobox Airport There has been an on-going discussion about this.--Huaiwei 07:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Well yes, but the information should be moved to somewhere else in the article, rather than removed. — Instantnood 07:21, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
Data is not gone, just in an older version. What we need is a clear template for the stats, seperate from the infobox. I will be working something up soonish. Burgundavia 07:31, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Burgundavia. — Instantnood 13:31, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
I edited the old table to remove the dupe information then put it under the "operations" header. For a formatting fix, I moved history above operations. I don't quite like that but we'll see what we can do. SchmuckyTheCat 14:50, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Looks good, but doesn't solve the most pressing issue, that of multiple years data. I am going to move it inline, so that we can show that information. Burgundavia 04:44, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
I feel the capacities info should come with the original table, and not part of statistics. Its strange that the overal data only includes runways, and not list terminal information. Anyway, should this be discusses at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/infobox or over here?--Huaiwei 07:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
if you have concrete suggestions about what should go in, please put them on the infobox page. Thanks Burgundavia 08:24, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
Oh sure, but erm. Do I do it on that page, or its archieve page?--Huaiwei 11:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Here --> Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/infobox Burgundavia 11:36, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
IC! Thanks! ;) --Huaiwei 12:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I suggest putting the HKG logo in the infobox. How's this: http://www.hongkongairport.com/eng/img/hkia_logo.gif We could upload it under logo fair use. Gordeonbleu 17:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A section on awards?

Shall we add a section on awards, like Singapore Changi Airport#Awards and accolades? :-) — Instantnood 13:02, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lifting of materials

Again, I notice entire paragraphs being lifted from third party sources, in this case taken wholesale from [2]. May I point out that this text is copyrighted, and should be edited or removed as soon as possible.

From [3]:

Copyright Notice
The content available in this website, including but not limited to all text, graphics, drawings, diagrams, photographs and compilation of data or other materials are protected by copyright. The Government of the HKSAR is the owner of all copyright works contained in this website. Any reproduction, adaptation, distribution, dissemination or making available of such copyright works to the public is strictly prohibited unless prior written authorisation is obtained from the CAD.--Huaiwei 13:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Is distribution or dissemination of the copyright notice prohibited too? :-) — Instantnood 13:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Erm...am I supposed to smile? ;)--Huaiwei 14:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Well well well, many HK-related pages were adopted from this page, and the page said free use is possible without any acknowledgement needed. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
And there lies in the pitfall in making assumptions like that. Copyright is not determined by url address, nor by a notice appearing in the website of the copyright holder. That copyright notice appearing in the specific website in question obviously superceeds those in other websites. Not that I want to be picky, but I think this lifting of materials is getting a tad overdone?--Huaiwei 15:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that very often the same or similar texts are available from more than one websites. The copyright notices may be the same or different. — Instantnood 18:56, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Another issue with lifting, even if the source says it is acceptable to re-use, is that we are converting the copyright. You can maintain copyright but still allow it to be re-posted, but on wikipedia, when you add content you assert that you are giving that text the GFDL. Using "free" content doesn't mean the copyright holder is necessarily cool with creative derivative works. SchmuckyTheCat 19:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Using "free" content doesn't mean the copyright holder is necessarily cool with creative derivative works. Why? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 09:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Because they often aren't. An artist might release a song and give it away free but then someone comes along and re-works it - many artists don't allow that and they hold the copyright so they have the right to not allow it. Same is true for text. For what reasons they have, you'd have to ask them, but it's not ok to take "free" copyrighted material and transpose it to the wikipedia license. SchmuckyTheCat 15:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, there are some copyright notices which specifically mentioned that even admendments to the original text and reproducing them is a copyright violation. While the above notice make no clear mention on this (the closest being the word "adaptation"), we should never assume that all copyright holders allow their text to be modified in an attempt to circumvent copyrights. Whatever the case, the above is a clearcut example of copyright violation, and I am making one last call for it to be resolved, failing which the text will be removed.--Huaiwei 15:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
But it said "no acknowledgement is needed"...what doess it mean? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
What does "it" refer to?--Huaiwei 16:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
The quoted remark. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
And where did you get this quoted remark from? I cant find it anywhere.--Huaiwei 17:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Click into any one of the PDFs and you would find it out in the left bottom of the last page. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 12:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Grr. The section "Recreational flying and the Government Flying Service" is like a mess! :( Soul1337 11:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Artificial island?

According to the text, it says

The airport was built on an artificial island reclaimed from Chek Lap Kok, one of the islands that make up the airport's 12.48 km² platform. It is connected to the northern side of Lantau Island at the new town of Tung Chung.

Is HKIA really built on a fully man-made and isolated island, or is it actually reclaimed land extending from Lantau Island and the former Chek Lap Kok and Lam Chau islands?--Huaiwei 14:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

It depends on whether you consider islands which are not entirely man-made as artificial. Ellis Island, for instance, was a a former tiny islet greatly expanded by land reclamation, according to artificial island. (And FYI, the airport is connected to Lantau by two bridges, with a channel in between.) — Instantnood 14:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I just double checked this on google earth. Meanwhile, the statement that "expanded natural islands" await verification, failing which this cannot qualify as being an "artificial island".--Huaiwei 15:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
It's an artificial island by any reasonable definition. Chek Lap Kok and Lam Chau were just in the way of it being built. SchmuckyTheCat 16:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Heh I doubt so thou, because if an artificial island includes an expanded natural island ("greatly" has yet to be quantified"), then I suppose the island of Singapore is artificial too? :D--Huaiwei 16:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't know Singapore. But Chep Lak Kok and Lam Chau - really it's better to just say they contributed the material to build the island. SchmuckyTheCat 19:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Haha nah....that just dosent sound academic at all! :D The point is people would automatically assume that an artificial island, by the virtue of its name, has got to be an artificial one. Not an expanded island or anything. Otherwise, I can assure you loads of "artificial islands" are going to emerge overnight. I can count at least 10 off my head in tiny Singapore alone!--Huaiwei 20:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Jurong Island is cited as an artificial island too, though not entirely man-made. — Instantnood 20:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I searched on google, and only a miniscule number of articles specifically refer to Jurong Island as an "artificial island". Even if they did, it is almost always a foreign source most likely writtern by some less then informed journalist who didnt realise the island wasent exactly fully man-made, but formed out of 11 islands, of which 5 are of significant size (which then makes me wonder if the Singapore mainland qualifies if this one does. lol!)--Huaiwei 22:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
The difference is that the original islands are such a small percentage of the result. They were in the way, so they used the material in the existing islands as some fill. The rest is all standard reclamation. HKIA is recognized as artificial because of the engineering it took to create. Most artificial islands are probably created at some point where some other rocks stick out of the water, it's convenient, that doesn't make it any less a construct. SchmuckyTheCat 21:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Hmm...not eactly true. Artificial islands do not need a rocky outcrop to form, and there is no need to expand this definition just to add every similar situation out there. If you say HKIA qualifies merely because of the engineering used, then how does this differ from any other reclamation project elsewhere? Also, these two islands didnt exactly "get in the way" so to speak. Choosing a reclamation site obviously involves finding one with shallow water, and if it is marked by nearby islands, then all the more likely that it will be shallow. The site was thus far from a randon selection, and the islands directly contribute to its choice, rather then just coincidentally being there. And what makes you thnk non of the 10 islands I could think of have a similar situation whereby "the original islands are such a small percentage of the result"? ;) And as I said above, how much is this percentage before it qualifies, or are we into some ambigious definition we create ourselves?--Huaiwei 22:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
The waters around the former islands of Chek Lap Kok and Lam Chau weren't actually shallow. — Instantnood 05:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Abviously the above statement will not be taken into consideration at all if it is not verified. When will instantnood ever learn?--Huaiwei 13:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Seems like there's a tendency that you're making bold assumptions.. if I say that's not entirely true you want me to spoonfeed the evidence. Why don't you look for a map of Hong Kong before making bold assumptions? :-) — Instantnood 15:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you'll be interested to take a look at this article. :-) — Instantnood 15:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I have no clue at all what "bold assumptions" you are refering to here at all. If you are refering to my text on land reclamation, then mind telling me if you can find any source which says that land reclamation does not take into account the water depth as a major criterion in selecting a land reclamtion site? Even a primary school textbook will say the same thing, so if you consider this a "bold assumption", then are you insinuating your intellect is no better then a primary school student, and that your knowledge is as shallow as it is suitable to be filled in by earth?
Spoonfeeding? You know, I dont mind you calling me a recipient of spoonfeeding till kingdom come, because as far as wikipedia is concerned, your "spoonfeeding" is a wikipolicy you have to abide by. Perhaps it should be noted to admins that you consider a wikipolicy as trivial as a spoonfeeding session? And talking about admins...hmm.....--Huaiwei 16:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Instead of putting on a plasticy smile all the time, perhaps you might wish to then explain to us just how should that article be useful in countering my comments, or to this assertion that HKIA is an "artificial island"?--Huaiwei 16:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
My apologies if I have mistakenly taken your mentioning of "shallow" (" Also, these two islands didnt exactly "get in the way" so to speak. Choosing a reclamation site obviously involves finding one with shallow water, and if it is marked by nearby islands, then all the more likely that it will be shallow. " [4]) to be assuming the waters around the former islands of Chek Lap Kok and Lam Chau were shallow. I just meant to say that the waters there were actually not shallow [5], as you might or might not have assumed. — Instantnood 16:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
If I may just point out to you, your source actual supports rather then refutes my statements. Just look at the extend to which extreme engineering is needed because of the depth of water involved. I dont exactly see it saying it chose deep water because that is a superior engineering choice? Now obviously, a collection of factors are involved in the eventual choice of site. Do you have many others site in HK which does not impose height restrictions on existing or future urban developments, allows space for expansion without intruding into shipping lanes and anchorages, do not cause a greater ecological disaster, and so on and so forth? Insisting that HKIA is built in deep water does not make it the norm. It is the exception. How does it refute the statement that shallow water is prefered when chosing a land reclamation site? And how does this make it any more artificial?
Indeed, this site was chosen also because we do have two existing islands there, which reduce the total amount of land needed to reclaim, as well as providing a convenient source for seafill. The total size of those existing islands makes up almost 25% of the eventual expanded size of the island. I dont think they are exactly "rocks in the water" so to speak.--Huaiwei 18:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
To repeat, what I did was to tell the waters around the two former islands are not shallow as you might or might not have (wrongly) assumed [6]. — Instantnood 21:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

This may be relevant here. — Instantnood 18:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Cool. You may continue to give us tonnes of articles which calls it an artificial island. But if you still cant show a single engineering/scientific/geographical publication which calls it one, I dont see how this is going to be convincing material. The discussions over what an artificial island really is continues in Talk:Artificial island.--Huaiwei 18:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Page 1, Sentence 1 of the book "Site Preparation for the new Hong Kong International Airport" (written and edited by engineers, at $175 it's not throwaway) calls it a "largely man-made island". HKIA was in the Top 10 Construction Achievements of the 20th Century [7] (a fact to add to the article if it's not already there). The original Chep Lap Kok isn't there anymore, except for the shape of the eastern coastline.
That something natural was already there doesn't detract from it being an artificial island. That's like proclaiming the Panama Canal isn't a man-made waterway because it's built as links between existing lakes and rivers. SchmuckyTheCat 19:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
"Largely man-made island" is not quite the same as calling it a "man-made island". Any island which has seen its size expanded, even by 1%, is also a partly "man-made island". What I have been talking about, is if engineers generally refer to any semi-reclaimed island as a man-made island/artificial island in its own right, without having to say that it was partly man-made/artificial. And no, Chep Lap Kok is there, irrespective of whether its coastline can still be seen. I dont think the engineers dug the entire island up and sent it below sea level before doing the land reclamation?
Panama canal is an artificial canal, and no canal is ever considered natural, even if it follows the course of the original river. In this case, the Panama canal is not exactly a replacement of the Chagres River, and no, Gatun Lake is not a natural lake either.--Huaiwei 20:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Hood Canal is entirely natural because it is a fjörd and not a canal.
Hence the reason why the article had to state "despite its name".--Huaiwei 17:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
"Largely man-made island" and "man-made island" is a matter of worthless semantics. The difference in this case between minor reclamation and construction of an artificial project is distinct and recognized world-wide. Regardless, I did clarify the article to avoid any confusion. If you're concern is the category, good luck trying to find any concensus to split into "Artificial islands", "Most artificial islands" "Somewhat artificial islands" and "jetties".
You make it sound like a worthless discussion between "largely empty" and "largely full", when in actual fact, this is more of a distinction between "largely empty" and "empty". A cup which is "largely empty" is not empty. An island which is "largely man-made" is not "man-made", because if so, why cant they just drop the word "largely"? My concern was not over the category. It was over the article's unverified claims which need correction.--Huaiwei 17:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
(response to Huaiwei's comment at 18:24, September 30) These two articles mentioned the two former islands, while calling the current platform an artificial island [8] [9] . The debate over engineering, scientific or geographical definitions of artificial islands, and which is qualified to be listed, should continue at talk:artificial island and talk:list of artificial islands. — Instantnood 21:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
As I have already said, you can keep quoting all kinds of sources, just as you could quote this idea that Jurong Island is an artificial island. The same question becons. Are those news articles qualified commentators on what an artificial island actually is?--Huaiwei 21:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[10] here are more engineers (architects) calling it an artificial island. SchmuckyTheCat 15:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tethered balloon at the airport.

The article says that there is/was a tethered balloon licensed to operate at the airport. Actually it originally said 'locally' but in the context of an article entitled Hong Kong International Airport that can only mean at the airport, and I've made that explicit. But it does seem rather strange; doesn't it rather get in the way?. -- Chris j wood 14:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

No response to this, so I have deleted the reference. -- Chris j wood 15:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heliservices (Hong Kong) Limited

According to this company's website, it operates from the Peninsular Hotel and has an engineering base at an unspecified site in the New Territories. Why then is it listed here?. -- Chris j wood 10:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Possibly fair comment in the strictest terms. However, the website's reference to Heliservices operating from the Peninsula Hotel is aimed specifically at its tourist customers who expect to have an in-town service without the necessity to travel all the way to CLK for a sightseeing tour. It is not intended as a definitive statement for the aviation industry, which has its own much tighter use of terms. Heliservices also operates out of the HKBAC at CLK and its cross-border services are based there. It has an established Chek Lap Kok-Peninsula aerial limousine service. Also, it is a sister company of Metrojet, based at HKBAC, both of them being members of the Hong Kong Aviation Group, itself a member of the Kadoorie Group of companies, which is also a major shareholder in the HKBAC.
For the record, Heliservices' engineering base is at Kadoorie Base in the Lam Tsuen Valley near Sek Kong (a detail not relevant to an international World Wide Web audience) and its main in-town pickpup heliport for tourists is currently at the Peninsula, following the closure of the Government's Wanchai Heliport a couple of years ago. Once again, it must be remembered that the website is intended for the general reader who wishes to know what services the company offers, and who has no interest whatever in arcane aviation detail.
Although I have no proof, it seems pretty obvious that the only reason Heliservices' engineering centre is not now at Chek Lap Kok is that it predates the new airport, and when the company was established in the 1970s there was no room for it at the old Kai Tak Airport. Originally it was therefore based at the Shek Kong Field but had to move from there prior to that field's takeover by the PLA several years before Chek Lap Kok became available. By the time the HKBAC was established at Chek Lap Kok, the new facility at Kadoorie Base was already in service. However, in essence Heliservices is an integral component of Hong Kong's aviation operations, not to mention one of its pioneers, and is therefore rightly considered native to Chek Lap Kok.
In short, this is an area where the differentiation between operations base and flight base is somewhat muddied since a helicopter service by its nature is for practical reasons more flexible than any fixed-wing counterpart and is not restricted to a particular plot of land, though coming under the same jurisdiction as the main airport.
It seems to me rather nit-picking to suggest that, because not all its flights originate from Chek Lap Kok and it does not actually service its aircraft there, Heliservices should not be listed here. It is a vital component of Hong Kong's internal aviation operations, all of which essentially are based at and controlled from Chek Lap Kok.
That said, I have no axe to grind here beyond a keen interest over many years in the development of aviation in Hong Kong and nothwithstanding my own position as webmaster to Heliservices, Metrojet, INSIGNIACLUB, Hong Kong Aviation Group and Hong Kong Business Aviation Centre, though I do believe it would be ridiculous and misleading not to include Heliservices here. :) kintakkintak

[edit] Check-in Aisles - Proposed deletion

I don't believe that listing the check-in aisles, and airlines using them, is a sensible use of Wikipedia. I would contend that this information is both too detailed, and too volatile, to be included. A quick survey of the articles on a few other major airports shows no sign of them doing this.

Can we establish a consensus on this?. -- Chris j wood 15:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peerreviewer script output

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • As per WP:MOS, please do not link words in headings.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 15 additive terms, a bit too much.
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
    • Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am now using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas. Thanks, Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some "missing" departure gates

Since the Airport's opening in 1998, the signs in the departure area have read "Gates 1-80".

However, I found that there are a lot of gates that "didn't exist".

Those gates were Gates 9, 14, 20, 37-39, 51-59 and 72-80.

The last time I landed in Hong Kong, I noticed that Gate 20 has been added.

What has happened to all the others? I would really be interested to know. --Kylohk 14:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

When HKIA was built, they left a huge empty lot west (I think) of the main terminal for the site of some future terminal to be built when needed. I am guessing that these will become gates 72-80.WasAPasserBy 01:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the new terminal will only have 9 gates. I've seen images of its expansion from SkyscraperCity and it has at least 20-25 new gates, with more shopping.Herenthere 22:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously it is a lot simpler to write "gates 1-80" than "gates 1-8, 10-13, 15-36, 41-50 and 60-71"! The new satellite terminal will be numbered gates 81 up; it will clearly have more than just 9 gates!

[edit] Former Destinations

On this airport article there's a section for former destinations. Why does this airport article have one? And why doensn't the other aiport article have one? If not all airport article have a section for former destinations, why shouldn't we delete the said section in this airport article? chris 08:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The previous former destinations section, deleted at 08:01, 25 April 2007, is copied here:
*[[Air China]] (Lhasa)
**[[China Southwest Airlines]] (merged with [[Air China]]) (Chengdu, Chongqing, Guiyang)
*[[Air India]] (Chennai, Kolkata)
*[[Air Nauru]] (Manila, Nauru)
*[[Alitalia]] (Milan-Malpensa, Rome-Fiumicino)
*[[Ansett Australia]] (bankruptcy) (Melbourne, Sydney)
*[[British Airways]] (Manila, Taipei-Taiwan Taoyuan)
*[[Canadian Airlines International]] (bankruptcy and subsequent absorption into Air Canada) (Bangkok, Manila, Vancouver)
*[[Cathay Pacific]] (Bandar Seri Begawan, Damman, Kaohsiung, Kolkata, Istanbul-Atatürk, Manchester, Munich, Port Moresby, Stockholm-Arlanda, Zürich)
**[[Dragonair]] (Bangkok-Don Mueang, Hiroshima, Kagoshima, Kathmandu, Kuching, Sendai, Tianjin)
*[[China Airlines]] (Singapore) 
*[[China Eastern Airlines]] (Zhoushan)
**[[China Northwest Airlines]] (merged with [[China Eastern Airlines]]) (Xian)
**[[China Yunnan Airlines]] (merged with [[China Eastern Airlines]]) (Kunming)
*[[China Southern Airlines]] (Kunming, Dalian, Lanzhou, Meixian, Nanjing, Wuyishan, Xian, Zhanjiang)
**[[China Northern Airlines]] (merged with [[China Southern Airlines]]) (Changchun, Dalian, Harbin, Shenyang)
**[[China Xinjiang Airlines]] (merged with [[China Southern Airlines]]) (Ürümqi)
*[[Continental Airlines]]
**[[Continental Airlines]] operated by [[Continental Micronesia]] (Saipan)
*[[Delta Air Lines]] (Anchorage, Los Angeles)
*[[Gulf Air]] (Abu Dhabi, Muscat)
*[[Hainan Airlines]] (Ürümqi)
*[[Hong Kong Airlines]] (Laoag, Sanya, Siem Reap, Subic Bay)
*[[Hong Kong Express Airways]] (Guangzhou, Laoag)
*[[Japan Airlines]] (Kagoshima, Okinawa)
*[[Korean Air]] (Jeju)
*[[Lauda Air]] (Bangkok, Vienna)
*[[Myanmar Airways International]] (Yangon)
*[[Northwest Airlines]] (Minneapolis/St. Paul, Seattle/Tacoma)
*[[Philippine Airlines]] (Cebu)
*[[Scandinavian Airlines System]] (Copenhagen)
*[[Shandong Airlines]] (Jinan, Qingdao)
*[[Shenzhen Airlines]] (Nanning)
*[[Sichuan Airlines]] (Lijiang)
*[[Singapore Airlines]] (Honolulu, Las Vegas, Taipei-Taiwan Taoyuan)
*[[Pacific Airlines]] (Danang)
*[[Palau Asia Pacific Air]] (Koror)
*[[Turkish Airlines]] (Bangkok-Don Mueang)
*[[Transaero]] (Moscow-Domodedovo)
*[[United Airlines]] (Delhi, Seattle/Tacoma)
*[[Varig]] (Bangkok-Don Mueang, Johannesburg, Rio de Janeiro-Galeão, São Paulo-Guarulhos)
*[[Valuair]] (merged with Jetstar Asia) (Singapore)
*[[Xiamen Airlines]] (Fuzhou, Jinjiang)
Peterwhy 11:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

Please consider moving all the alternate information in the lead (different languages and scripts etc) and put them in the infobox instead.--Filll 17:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats not really necessary, other airport articles have the IATA and languages in the lead as well. Such as John F. Kennedy International Airport, Beijing Capital International Airport, or Berlin-Schönefeld International Airport. They are also available in the infobox of each article as well. Herenthere (Talk) 20:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Filll was behind the removal of all similar information in Singapore Changi Airport as well, despite failing to garner concensus from the relevant WP page to modify existing policies.--Huaiwei 13:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Nomination

Could we push for GA status for this article? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding overview picture

I think that we should adding overview picture for this airport, and other majority airport so that viewer can tell how big are them

[edit] Northwest Airlines

Is LAX truly a NW destination from HKG? Most of the time it's a different B744 aircraft. (Just check NRT gate numbers on FlightStats.) (I think NW tends to use older planes for shorter routes e.g. HKG-NRT.) All passengers have to get off for security anyway. They may get one boarding pass for HKG-LAX but that's just because the equipment and seat configuration remains the same. HkCaGu 01:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It is covered in WP:Airports. Bucs2004 03:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Not exactly, as it mentions only "domestic hub". But as I interpret it, NRT is a hub and it's the same principle as a "domestic" hub (HKG & LAX being 2 spokes) and LAX should not be listed under HKG. NW has a bunch of 744s flying in then out two rounds a day, and most planes don't follow the flight number. It isn't an equipment type change, but it's too often an equipment change. HkCaGu 04:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed LAX. Bucs2004 05:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UA focus city?

I just noticed recently that a user added in the intro paragraph to the article that "It is also a focus city for United Airlines". What makes Hong Kong a focus city? Is it truly a focus city? The destinations listed for UA is to Chicago-O'Hare, San Francisco, Los Angeles [beginning October 29], Ho Chi Minh City, and Singapore. What are your suggestions? Many Thanks. Bucs2004 16:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diagram

I haven't been to the airport in a while, and this new Terminal 2 has me confused. A diagram of the airport island with terminals, train station, ATC tower in it would be useful. Wongm (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't know where to find one, but I can tell you that Terminal 2 isn't really a terminal. It's merely a check-in hall east of the railroad and street loop. Once you checked in, the underground train brings you back to the same old gates west of "Terminal 1". On arrival, it's still the same "A" and "B" exits on the west side. HkCaGu (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that - I though T2 might have been out in the middle of the field to the west. Someone has clarified the people mover article as well. Wongm (talk) 08:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
That would be me! And thank you for pointing that out. -Herenthere (Talk) 19:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Necessary paragraph

the section is already very wordy?

To comply with the Global Implementation Plan, the Civil Aviation Department plans to introduce satellite based Communications, Navigation, Surveillance/Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM) Systems to enhance flight safety and efficiency as well as to maintain Hong Kong’s status as a centre of international and regional aviation. The project will take 15 years and owing to the complexities involved, extensive studies and trials are being conducted before the new technologies are to be fully adopted. Currently, some of new services, including Digital-Automatic Terminal Information Service (D-ATIS), Digital-Meteorological Information for Aircraft in Flight (D-VOLMET) and delivery of Pre-Departure Clearance (PDC) over data links, are provided at HKIA to enhance the operational efficiency of both pilots and air traffic controllers.

I propose removing it in 3 days if no one objectsMichellecrisp (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bus routes

Bus routes should be removed as per WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:NOT#DIR. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't see which point in your two links disapprove the existence of bus routes. Just as railway and ferry routes are added, bus routes should be allowed too. – PeterCX&Talk 02:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Listing of bus routes is like a travel guide. Also the listing is like a list of bus routes you might find on a bus stop. Wikipedia is not designed to be a reference point about how to get to/from an airport. The listing of bus routes has been discouraged in many airport and locality articles I have seen. You don't see it in this featured article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Gurion_International_Airport#Accessibility Michellecrisp (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
A good compromise would be to list the destinations in Hong Kong that airport buses serve. Do it in prose and not as a list as well. Bus routes are ok to include in a locality article (including an airport, which is in itself a suburb), but not in an overboard sense. My suggestion would surely be fine and would be consistent with a number of articles in Wikipedia. JRG (talk) 10:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Taxi

Luggage and bridge fees affect most airport taxi passengers, so why can't it be included in this article? Also, they are hardly GUIDEs, I would say. – PeterCX&Talk 02:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

and this happens in most cities in the world. this is an encyclopaedia. supplying information on charges for "airport taxi passenger" in fact makes this a guide. People can look up at travel guide on taxi charges to/from an airport. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Read the GA Singapore Changi Airport. Here it only said 'luggage and bridge fees are required', but not somethink like 'HK$20 are required'. That is even less 'guide' then that suggested in a GA. And of course I am not listing out fare-area relation chart, which is a travel guide. (GA means good article, not guide article, though) – PeterCX&Talk 15:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] International Traffic

Does HKIA only serve international traffic? Because how can there be domestic flights in Hong Kong? So technically speaking would HKIA be the 5th busiest airport in the whole world because there is no domestic traffic? I am confused. 69.255.197.173 (talk) 04:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, there are no domestic route for HKIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neofung (talk • contribs) 10:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A sketch map is needed

Show runway 1, the X like Terminal 3, Terminal 1 , the MTR station, the bus terminal, the Asia World Expo. Matthew_hk tc 08:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)