Template talk:Infobox Airline/doc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Dbinder's proposal

Some comments:

Hubs, then focus cities, I know that this is what some airlines use. However, the data for both is airports. Should the hubs be hub cities? Not sure about this at all.
What should appear in the boxes and it what order? If the focus on the airline or who currently runs it?
Do we need an article on Member lounge airport lounge?

Vegaswikian 23:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I put the most important corporate information to avoid having to also add a corporation infobox (having two infoboxes makes the page look cluttered).
Virtually all airlines (except for low-fare carriers) use some variation of the hub-and-spoke system. Not all airlines have focus cities, but many do. That field can say "none" or be left blank for the airlines that don't.
I added the link to Airline lounge, since I figured at some point or another, someone should write a brief article about that.
I put the box in the other five major US carriers. I'll hold off on expanding it further until a final design has been made.

Dbinder 20:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

BTW, the box is now in 9 airlines. Vegaswikian 18:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I modified the template, since that appears to be the only way to change the order of display and to add elements. If there is a better way, please let me know. I moved the company information down to place the focus on the airline, and not the company and managers, and added a link to this infobox section for comments. Let me know what you think. Vegaswikian 18:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree that the new design looks better. I changed the link in the box to point to this discussion page, rather than the content page. Dbinder 18:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I added secondary hubs to the description of focus city. Vegaswikian 21:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Should a space for fleet size or number of cities served be added to the infobox? Vegaswikian 21:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi, may I change some of the links such that they go direct to pages, instead of their redirects? Of coz, we can maintain the current appearance by using something like Frequent Flyer Program etc.--Huaiwei 14:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Sure, that was one of the reasons for the {{Airline codes}} template, it eliminated redirects. Most of what we are working on at this point is trial and error and fixing what is broken is encouraged. What I have been doing, if I'm changing what someone else is behind, is explain why I'm making a change in a talk page and then doing it. Vegaswikian 17:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
What problems did you find? Maybe we should be changing the words we are using to the redirect's article title? Vegaswikian 17:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Hm...how about changing the link for Frequent Flyer Program (a redirect) to Frequent flyer program? That is the only link left unchanged by now, and the rest are ok--Huaiwei 18:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. BTW, anyone can change a template, just edit line any article. Vegaswikian 19:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Do we need to add some indicator about the type or airline/serivce offered? This could include mainline/scheduled, regional/scheduled, charter, cargo, military airlift, tour (helicopter and fixed wing). Or is this best left to the body of the article? Vegaswikian 19:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • User:TorontoStorm removed a couple fields from the infobox. While I reverted most of his changes, I do agree with the suggestion of removing the "Summary" heading. I'm replacing it with the name of the airline (see updated infobox specs). Dbinder 14:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ad slogans

Would it be meet to include the line's corporate advertising tagline in the box? I note that, for American, for example, it doesn't seem to be anywhere in the article at all. Though airline slogans probably have less resonance today than they did in the regulated era, it seems to me that it would be informative to include them.
--Baylink 19:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

  • If a slogan is a key factor of how people see the airline or how the airline runs its operations I think it should be in the article under corporate culture. What I would like to see is a section of acqustions, partnerships, foreign services, and express or shuttle subsides that an airline has.
    --mitrebox 20:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Add your suggestions to Structure as listed below. You don't have to be listed as a participant to make changes, but it would be nice to see a few more participants listed. Vegaswikian 20:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, for my part, I'm a dilettante: it's more an advertising thing than an airlines thing.  :-) My best friend works for SWA, though.
        --Baylink 18:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't know. The question probably comes down to what should be in the infobox vs. someplace else in the article. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines#Structure and see if there is a good place for it there or a good place to fit it in. Remember this project is new so there are probably a lot of things that need to be added in the structure that have not been identified yet. Vegaswikian 20:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Slogans might be a good idea, but a lot of people still remember slogans no longer in use, especially United's "Fly the Friendly Skies" (not really sure why they got rid of that). Anyway, if there is such a section, it should also mention the carrier's most famous one in addition to any current one(s). Dbinder 21:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Your comment about the past slogans kind of says they need to be in the article itself. That's about the only way you show the progression and list the memorable ones from the past. I'll add this to the structue somewhere but feel free to move it around. Vegaswikian

[edit] Destinations and cargo and codeshares

Btw, I just noticed an inconsistency which may arise in the "Destinatons" field. Do we include codeshared desinations served only by other airlines? And how do we deal with cargo-only desinations, esp. considering some major airlines have set up a seperate cargo airline to handle cargo traffic, such as Lufthansa Cargo and Singapore Airlines Cargo?--Huaiwei 18:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

  • My position has always been to keep companies seperate since that avoids confusion. Using HP as an example, there was one article to start, now there are three (America West Airlines, America West Express, and America West Holdings Corporation). I beleive that this makes it easier to keep things straight. I learned this when I tried to fix the Golden Nugget article which was suppose to be mostly about the Vegas casino and was really about the company. The cargo issue to me is simple when there is a seperate company or division, create an article about that and then link to it as needed. If it is a small operation, then just add a section to the parent company article. Codeshares are more difficult so I'm creating a subsection here to discuss that. Your comments also bring up the issue of charter flights, especially to standard destinations. Vegaswikian 19:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah...and also seasonal destinations? Hmm...is it neccesary to expand the destinations dta field to incorporate three figures: the first for regular scheduled flights only, the second for seasonal only, and the third for chartered only? And maybe one more for the total figure?--Huaiwei 05:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Seasonal is usually handled by adding (seasonal) after the destination. Sometimes it includes the dates of service for the next season. I think that works and staying with that should be OK. Vegaswikian 05:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How to handle code shares in destinations

  • Most of the destination pages I have seen are for routes that the airline flies. That seems to be the reason the articles say not including the regional carriers that fly under their name. The airport articles also list the Airline and regional companies destinations in different places and include overlaps if both fly to a specific location. So maybe code shares should be listed in services see Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines#Structure. Vegaswikian 19:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmm...I believe codeshares are usually ignored when it comes to statistical information compelled by aviation organisations because doing so will result in plenty of overlapping data which can be highly misleading. All the more so when we now have huge airline alliances, which has the potential of effectively adding hundreds of destinations to each airline indirectly. Usually, the only cases of codeshares being listed is when airlines are promoting the extend of their services, so shall we add another line for "codeshared destinations"? Btw...there are codeshares for cargo airlines too. :D--Huaiwei 05:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I missed your question not sure if it was answered. In any case, I think it is sufficent to list the fact that airline 1 has a code share agreement with airline 2. I don't know that it is necessary to provide more detail in an article unless there is something unique about a specific codeshare. I think that listing destinations is problematic since the airline does not actually fly that route, they offer a service that allows their passengers to reach that destination. Vegaswikian 16:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How to handle charters in destinations

  • I have seen at least one new airline stub that listed 3 locations that an airline flys to on a regular basis. Several charter airlines fly scheduled charter service into Vegas. One is Omni Air International and that page does not list destinations with regular service but it does mention some in the article text. Don't know if this is the correct way to do this or not. Maybe the infobox needs some updates? Vegaswikian 19:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Think these should be added as a seperate field or a seperate line under "desintations", since airline are usually assumed to be operating regular scheduled flights only, while chartered operations has its own category of regulations to be met?--Huaiwei 05:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I think a heading under destinations. This could also work for scheduled charters. Vegaswikian 05:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fleet Size

  • I've noticed that some carriers' infoboxes include regional non-operated planes in under total fleet size. Originally, I entered the information from the alliance websites. However, I realized that the most reliable source (for US carriers anyway) is FAA registration information, since this provides a consistent measurement across carriers. Dbinder 20:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    • FAA info is also valid for Canadian carriers. Dbinder 20:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Yet another complication, is that some would add leased-in aircraft, leased-out aircraft, or even aircraft on order/options. There are also cases of aircraft being stored, etc, of which some airlines include them, while others dont. Shall we come up with a standardised treatment of these information, or will a more detailed fleet breakdown be better? I hope this dosent add too much clutter thou...:D --Huaiwei 20:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I think a position is needed. The question is, can we get uniform data for all airlines? If the answer is no, then what do we use? Maybe we simply say the sources for the data need to be uniform. So for US and Canada we use the FAA data and for everyone else we use their press reports or other sources like a web site. Maybe it is a list of sources in the preferred order? While they may report different things, at least our source is uniform. Vegaswikian 21:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
        • This looks like it really could be a problem, so I like the idea of using a standard data source... or a list in preferred order. I'm seeing this as a problem as I build the infobox for Aloha Airlines. The FAA site says they have 23, but the Aloha website only accounts for 21. FAA also doesn't break down subtypes, so if you search Aloha you'll just see 23 Boeing 737, while Aloha's web site breaks it down into -700, -200 (pax), and -200 (cargo). So right now the infobox says 23, and the breakdown in the article says 21. Help! Hawaiian717 02:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adding a new section to the airline infobox for international gateway cities. Good idea?

The airline infobox table has good info for hubs and focus cities, but what about gateways? Using NW as the example, I saw that the NW page had JFK, SFO, SEA, and HNL listed as focus cities. I added a few more, such as LAX and PDX... which Dbinder correctly removed (thank you) since they are not true focus cities. So I went ahead and removed the other remaining gateways, leaving only IND and MKE, which are the only true focus cities for NW. So back to my question. Should there be a home for places like SEA, PDX, SFO, LAX, BOS, JFK? Or is that way too much information for a table? Reward 09:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I think HNL is actually a focus city for NW. As for the others, Northwest is in a unique position (along with United) of having hubs outside of the country, so their flights from gateways go to one or both of their international hubs. For most airlines, international gateways are focus cities, so I'm not sure if another section is necessary. Dbinder 13:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
If you define a focus city as a place which has flights to destinations normally served only by hubs, then HNL could be a focus city (since there are flights from LAX, SFO, SEA, and PDX). I agree with you about seeing the gateway as only a spoke from the hub in Japan or Europe. So maybe the international gateway designation doesn't really mean much, as long as people know there are hubs outside of the U.S. which service non-hub U.S. cities, such as SEA, PDX, SFO, and LAX. Reward 01:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Not sure. To me gateways are frequently, if not always, hubs, look at CO at EWR. That is their major hub and their primary gateway, at least based on what I think a gateway is. I'd rather see an expansion of the airport categories to include Category:International Airport to deal with this. I believe I created it once only to have it removed with the comment that it would cover virtually every airport. Vegaswikian 20:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, gateways may be hubs, but certainly not always. EWR is a good example of one that is, as is SFO for UA and JFK for DL. But SFO and JFK are only gateway cities for NW. When NW operated a NRT flight from LAS, it was just a gateway. SFO is definitely a hub for UA but just a gateway city for NW.
I think the category for international airport is a good idea. But since there are so many cities within the U.S. which have service to Canada (I guess that's why someone thought it would include almost all airports) maybe having some additonal criteria would be good. For instance, an airport which has service to countries other than Canada, Mexico, or the Carribean. Or a distance requirement? Something which would capture all the aiports with flights to the Asia-Pacific region, Europe, and South America. Reward 01:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
That begs the question of what to do with Europe. Almost every airport there services international locations, even if only the country next door. Actually I think that the US is the smallest of the problems. Vegaswikian 04:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Good point! The U.S. is unique in having the largest domestic route system in the world; nothing else even comes close in terms of daily flights or air passengers carried on a wholly domestic basis. If you want to beg even more questions, consider that between EU countries, flights are not international in the sense they once were. What do we call these? And there are places such as SIN, where every flight is international. Reward 05:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Specification of Infobox

The fields should be used as follows:

{{Infobox frame}}
{{Airline infobox |
airline=airline common name (not corporation name)|
logo=logo_filename|
logo_size=logo_size (usually 250px)|
fleet_size=# of registered planes in fleet, for US and Canadian carriers, use the FAA data.
    Do not include regional jets not owned by the airline (e.g. Under US Airways include Embraer 170s
    owned by US Airways but not Embraer 145s owned by Chautauqua Airlines)|
destinations=# of destinations served by mainline fleet, not including express|
IATA=IATA code|
ICAO=ICAO code|
callsign=callsign|
company_name=parent or holding company if applicable, otherwise repeat full airline name|
founded=year founded, original name "(as XYZ)" if applicable|
headquarters=[[city name]], [[state/province name (optional)]], [[country name]]|
key_people=CEO and/or chairman, any other notables|
hubs=[[largest hub]]<br>[[other hubs...]]|
focus_cities=[[secondary hubs...]]<br>[[focus cities...]]|
frequent_flyer=program name|
lounge=lounge name; if no member lounge exists, provide name of business lounge|
alliance=[[alliance name]]|
website=web address without "http://"|
}}
{{End frame}} Dbinder 15:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Note: I created {{Infobox frame}} as a more generic version of the airline frame. This is also going to replace Airline Alliance frame. For future uses of the infobox, use the Infobox frame instead of Airline frame. Dbinder 14:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I just changed the US Air infobox to remove the cities from the infobox. I thought the box was to just list the airports to keep things clean, now it says focus cities above. Should that be focus cities airports ? Vegaswikian 20:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hide parts of infobox that don't have information?

A question first. Is this template going to be used on smaller airlines as well as the majors?

If so should it be modified to hide parts of the box that don't include information (usually because the airline doesn't use it)? For example Air Tindi has no members lounge, alliance, parent company etc. so why must those boxes be left blank on its page?

This could be done the same way I've modified {{Infobox UNSecGen}}. If you look you can see the death section is included on Dag Hammarskjöld, but is hidden at Kofi Annan (because he's alive). Something along the same lines? If no information is entered after the = then the box doesn't apear on the page. - Trevor macinnis 01:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Dbinder 13:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to see some of them retained so that editors can notice that they are missing when they are finally created add the info. Something like the owning company could be an exception. It might be also nice to be able to blank out missing information rather then displaying {{{whatever}}} when we add a new field, like fleet size. Vegaswikian 19:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
On Westjet, there are some blank fields but they dont disappear even though there is no information is entered after the = TorontoStorm 14:56, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
We haven't made that change yet (I'm not actually sure how to do it). Feel free to do so. Dbinder 15:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I can do it easily enough, I just wasn't sure if it was okay yet. But I'll do it now and let people revert it if it they don't like it. Trevor macinnis 15:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I did one line. Now if the airline has a member lounge (American Airlines) it will show, but if it doesn't (ATA Airlines) it won't. To explain, the new line {{if defined call1|{{{lounge}}}|Airline infobox/Lounge|{{{lounge}}}}} means that if the variable "lounge" is "defined" (i.e. entered after the = on the airline page)then the subpage "Airline infobox/Lounge" is printed in this spot with the variable "lounge" inserted. Trevor macinnis 16:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Trevor macinnis, can you also do that for the frequent flyer program, parent company, focus cities, and alliance. If you could that would be GREAT! TorontoStorm 16:06, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Remove Link

Can we remove the link from the infobox to here because most people just view the articles not edit them, so that link is of no use to them TorontoStorm 15:23, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • We could, but the intent was to generate feedback on the template. This is modeled on the one in the airport infobox. If you are saying the the infobox is fine as is and that it can be rolled out to many more articles without questions then, yes it can be removed. Vegaswikian 21:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I think at this point it probably can be removed. The template's already in a bunch of airlines and seems to be working well. Dbinder 21:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Colour

In my opinion the colour is hideous. Surely a blue colour would be best, but frankly anything but the present. Mark83 22:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Be bold. My only suggestion might be to use something similar to that is used in the airport box so that the two start having a similar look and feel. Vegaswikian 23:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Key People

Should we standardize what positions we list as key people? CEO is obvious... any other positions we should make sure to include? Hawaiian717 22:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, makes sense. Maybe just CEO/President/COO? Vegaswikian 05:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Hawaiian717 01:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regional Affiliates

Any thoughts on how to handle information like frequent flyer program, alliance affiliation, and member club for regional affiliates? Airlines like SkyWest are especially complicated, since they run separate operations for United Airlines and Delta Air Lines that are distinct. If you're a passenger on a flight operating in the Delta system, you get Delta benefits only, no United benefits. Airlines that only operate for a single carrier like Atlantic Southeast Airlines are a little simpler, but still, it is not "their" program. Hawaiian717 21:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Personally, FF programs and clubs are really something that is covered by the airline that the regional carriers are under contract to. Is there any need to list these items under the reginoals? Vegaswikian 08:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Should callsign be in all caps?

Some editors have been changing the callsigns in the infobox to be in all caps. Is this the way we want it? I notice in the example that "Air Canada" is not. Personally, I'd prefer them to be written normally, with all-caps reserved for airlines that actually use an acronym as their callsign, such as "TWA". -- Hawaiian717 15:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry late into this one (thanks Hawaiian717) - as the main culprit for changing the callsigns to upper case (and I have done a lot of them!!!). The main reason is that the official source for ICAO codes and callsigns (which is ICAO Document 8585), and the FAA documents and eurocontrol always list the callsign as uppercase. airlinecodes.co.uk and some of the other websites quoted are just an amateur site and in my opinion we should follow ICAO 8585 which is the official document for callsigns. Please refer to http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/CNT/3-3.HTM or http://www.eurocontrol.int/icaoref/icao_8585_aircraft_operators_browse.jsp.MilborneOne 20:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

To confirm what MilborneOne has mentioned the Russian State Air Traffic Management Corporation also lists all callsigns in CAPITALS. Uppercase is the standard which should probably be followed --Russavia 11:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need Russian specific sections

In the infobox we have sections for IATA and ICAO codes and also callsigns. This is fine for a lot of the airlines, however for Russian airlines it is totally insufficient.

Take for example Chukotavia which has neither IATA nor ICAO code, but has the internal code of АД (Russian letters AD).

Obviously this option need not be included in the standard infobox, as they won't be relevant to non-Russian airlines, but can someone please modify an infobox template for me to include these details in Russian airlines as they are relevant, and in some cases more relevant than international data.

--Russavia 11:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)