Talk:Impulse Airlines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Impulse Airlines article.

Article policies
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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Flag
Portal
Impulse Airlines is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Importance Rating

I think this should be Low or Medium on the importance rating. Any comments?--Rob 07:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] J41

Thanks Ardfern for tidying this article up a bit. I have changed the wikilink to J41s back to BAe Jetstream 41 from Handley Page Jetstream because they are two separate articles. The former deals specifically with the J41 whereas the latter deals with earlier versions of the Jetstream. The type acquired by Impulse was the J41. Also, could you please take another look at the part that says:

"The airline was acquired by Qantas in November 2001, forming part of the QantasLink group of subsidiary airlines. It ceased operations on 24 May 2004 and in May 2005 its operations were integrated into the QantasLink network."

I'm sure these dates aren't right. This suggests that the airline didn't fly at all between May 2004 and May 2005 but that it re-commenced operations in May 2005. I'm confused because I'm sure that Impulse was flying as Jetstar in 2004. I'm not sure what this section should say. Thanks. -- Adz 07:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

    • Sorry about the Jetsream 41 edit - I live and learn. I have amended the history above and think it now reflects the true position. I did wonder about the logic of the above, but was trying to incorporate what was already there. Trust it is ok now. Ardfern 20:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
      • No need to apologise. Thanks for clarifying. I had a chance to think over it some more and have made a few more tweeks. I think its right now. -- Adz 03:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)