Talk:List of national airlines
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] US Airways
US Airways' hubs now include Phoenix and Las Vegas, since the America West Merger has been completed, right? --Eklapper 15:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] National?
Cathay Pacific's website suggests that its a privately held corporation. --Jiang 05:32, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Is "national" here meaning state-owned (no matter partial or entirely)? — Instantnood 18:43, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
- A "national airline" dosent mean it has to be state-owned. It means it is the officially designated flag carrer of the said country. Not all states have one....even the USA dosent have one, although some consider all the five major airlines as their flag carrier, although it has never been official. Cathay Pacific has never been designated as a national airline, and this is quite telling in its website. In fact, it even has to explicitely explain why it is a "HK-based airline", considering it was actually formed out of "foreign" interests, and is still run by a directorial board largely composed of "foreigners". Calling it a "national airline" is certainly a long-shot compared to this.--Huaiwei 09:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- It's true that many top personnels of the Swire Group, the majority shareholder of Cathay Pacific, are not "locals" of Hong Kong, and the Group is substantially owned by shareholders from the UK, few would see it as a true "foreign" companies in Hong Kong, considering that the focus of development of the Group has been in Hong Kong for over a hundred years. Meanwhile I'd love to hear a bit more on what qualified as "official designation", so as to be listed here. How, if any, does such official designation vary from country to country? Thanks. — Instantnood 09:31, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- That is true for most colonial-era leftovers of the HK economy anyway, mirrored by such companies as HSBC, Stanchat, and so on. They hardly fall into the "local companies" in most other normal economies in which they are locally-found, locally managed, and locally owned. Of coz, an increasingly globalised economy means the whole thing is getting more and more murkey, but it is still not difficult to spot the inconsistencies. Just try comparing Singapore Airlines with Cathay, or that of Singapore's largest banks with that of HK. Singaporean companies, like those in most advanced economies, are tying to grap "foreign" talent into their realm. These colonial legacy HK companies, on the other hand, seem to be tring to constantly justify their place in HK! :D Just a personal observation, of coz.--Huaiwei 10:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Few companies in Hong Kong are state-owned, or were in the past owned by the colonial government or the British government. There's not even restrictions, with very few exceptions, on the nationalities of shareholders. I'd say it's not quite relevant to talk about nationalities of ownership of companies in Hong Kong.. :-) And not really.. HSBC is defining itself a world's bank with global presence instead of justifying its place in Hong Kong. It rebranded itself from HongkongBank to HSBC. Similarly, Cathay Pacific defines itself as an airline of Asia in its ads (with the slogan "亞洲脈搏亞洲心 Fly Cathay Pacific The Heart of Asia!"), not just Hong Kong. :-) — Instantnood 10:34, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Dont really understand what the first two lines are trying to say, but yeah, the very fact that HK was a former colony with a laisezz faire attitude meant there is far less likelihood of governmental intervention to prevent economic dominance by a few companies with huge fiscal pockets, particular those originating from Britain, and in the hands of a few local tycoons. Antitrust laws seems almost non-existant, and if there are any, it is a wonder if they are ever effectively enforced. Many of these colonial-legacy companies are indeed consciousless and actively promoting their attachment to HK. Just look at the annual reports and websites of the HSBC or that of Cathay Pacific. HSBC didnt exactly "rebrand" itself with that name. It recognised that its over-reliance on the HK market was too financially risky, and decided to establish a holding entity based in London to reposition itself as a global entity, largely helped by buying up banks in other continents. Even as it calls itself the "world's local bank", it still finds the need to continue harking back on its HK roots. Cathay Pacific's slogan is hardly unusual when it comes to airlines. Singapore Airlines says it is "making the world a smaller place" with the launch of the world's longest flights, Philippine airlines cant resist constantly reminding everyone that it is "Asia's first airline", and British Airways of coz thinks they are the world's favourite airline. But non of them seem to see a need to also constantly remind shareholders or viewers of their website over where they are actually based in...the way Cathay has to.--Huaiwei 16:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Interesting information. :-) For the first two lines I was saying few people would actually perceive the "nationality" of a company by its ownership, in the case of Hong Kong. People from everywhere of the world can own the companies in Hong Kong. — Instantnood 17:38, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- You dont really need to offer that information thou. Is "nationality" of a company defined by ownership? It appears to me that you are misreading what I write above. Meanwhile, I suppose you are trying to say that there are no rules which govern ownership of any HK company by any "foreign" entity? Great. Again, that then brings up questions of just what is a "national" entity in HK then.--Huaiwei 18:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Isn't ownership a criteria to define the "nationality" of an airline company in common practice? — Instantnood 18:44, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- It is? From where did you get this impression? So based on this, is Cathay a HK company?--Huaiwei 19:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- From the document of the CARICOM you mentioned ([1]). — Instantnood 19:34, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- I do wonder if you actually read my comments above, and I do also wonder how familiar are you with the aviation sector. Indeed, I am actually beginning to doubt your comprehension level when it comes to reading English documents. Would you mind telling me which line(s) in that source tells u that ownership is a criteria for nationality definitions today? Even then, I suppose you are basically also telling us that Cathay is not a HK company then?--Huaiwei 19:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Yes I am not quite familiar with civil aviation. The third paragraph of the attachment III says so.. that in traditional practice national airlines were defined in this way. And I supposed that's still the common practice, though not always holds, today. Please let me know if I'm wrong. — Instantnood 18:28, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
- I do wonder if you actually read my comments above, and I do also wonder how familiar are you with the aviation sector. Indeed, I am actually beginning to doubt your comprehension level when it comes to reading English documents. Would you mind telling me which line(s) in that source tells u that ownership is a criteria for nationality definitions today? Even then, I suppose you are basically also telling us that Cathay is not a HK company then?--Huaiwei 19:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- From the document of the CARICOM you mentioned ([1]). — Instantnood 19:34, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- It is? From where did you get this impression? So based on this, is Cathay a HK company?--Huaiwei 19:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Isn't ownership a criteria to define the "nationality" of an airline company in common practice? — Instantnood 18:44, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- You dont really need to offer that information thou. Is "nationality" of a company defined by ownership? It appears to me that you are misreading what I write above. Meanwhile, I suppose you are trying to say that there are no rules which govern ownership of any HK company by any "foreign" entity? Great. Again, that then brings up questions of just what is a "national" entity in HK then.--Huaiwei 18:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Interesting information. :-) For the first two lines I was saying few people would actually perceive the "nationality" of a company by its ownership, in the case of Hong Kong. People from everywhere of the world can own the companies in Hong Kong. — Instantnood 17:38, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Dont really understand what the first two lines are trying to say, but yeah, the very fact that HK was a former colony with a laisezz faire attitude meant there is far less likelihood of governmental intervention to prevent economic dominance by a few companies with huge fiscal pockets, particular those originating from Britain, and in the hands of a few local tycoons. Antitrust laws seems almost non-existant, and if there are any, it is a wonder if they are ever effectively enforced. Many of these colonial-legacy companies are indeed consciousless and actively promoting their attachment to HK. Just look at the annual reports and websites of the HSBC or that of Cathay Pacific. HSBC didnt exactly "rebrand" itself with that name. It recognised that its over-reliance on the HK market was too financially risky, and decided to establish a holding entity based in London to reposition itself as a global entity, largely helped by buying up banks in other continents. Even as it calls itself the "world's local bank", it still finds the need to continue harking back on its HK roots. Cathay Pacific's slogan is hardly unusual when it comes to airlines. Singapore Airlines says it is "making the world a smaller place" with the launch of the world's longest flights, Philippine airlines cant resist constantly reminding everyone that it is "Asia's first airline", and British Airways of coz thinks they are the world's favourite airline. But non of them seem to see a need to also constantly remind shareholders or viewers of their website over where they are actually based in...the way Cathay has to.--Huaiwei 16:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Few companies in Hong Kong are state-owned, or were in the past owned by the colonial government or the British government. There's not even restrictions, with very few exceptions, on the nationalities of shareholders. I'd say it's not quite relevant to talk about nationalities of ownership of companies in Hong Kong.. :-) And not really.. HSBC is defining itself a world's bank with global presence instead of justifying its place in Hong Kong. It rebranded itself from HongkongBank to HSBC. Similarly, Cathay Pacific defines itself as an airline of Asia in its ads (with the slogan "亞洲脈搏亞洲心 Fly Cathay Pacific The Heart of Asia!"), not just Hong Kong. :-) — Instantnood 10:34, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- That is true for most colonial-era leftovers of the HK economy anyway, mirrored by such companies as HSBC, Stanchat, and so on. They hardly fall into the "local companies" in most other normal economies in which they are locally-found, locally managed, and locally owned. Of coz, an increasingly globalised economy means the whole thing is getting more and more murkey, but it is still not difficult to spot the inconsistencies. Just try comparing Singapore Airlines with Cathay, or that of Singapore's largest banks with that of HK. Singaporean companies, like those in most advanced economies, are tying to grap "foreign" talent into their realm. These colonial legacy HK companies, on the other hand, seem to be tring to constantly justify their place in HK! :D Just a personal observation, of coz.--Huaiwei 10:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- It's true that many top personnels of the Swire Group, the majority shareholder of Cathay Pacific, are not "locals" of Hong Kong, and the Group is substantially owned by shareholders from the UK, few would see it as a true "foreign" companies in Hong Kong, considering that the focus of development of the Group has been in Hong Kong for over a hundred years. Meanwhile I'd love to hear a bit more on what qualified as "official designation", so as to be listed here. How, if any, does such official designation vary from country to country? Thanks. — Instantnood 09:31, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Anyway, it is true that different governments may use different criteria in designating a "national airline", but what is obviously important is that the designation must be there. Thailand, for example, actually has two designated national airlines: Thai International And Angel Air, and to remain as such, they have to meet specific fiscal and operational criteria. As national flag carriers, they then usually enjoy greater priviledges in air rights negotiations between governments. Of coz, this isnt always true. In Singapore, air rights will be awarded to any entity which can demonstrate better utilisation of available rights, irregardless of their status. Therefore, it is obviously not enough to say an airline is a "national airline" just by meeting the criteria for any one country. The criteria is not important. The official designation is.--Huaiwei 10:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you. Mind telling how to look for official designation information? I think it is necessary to include such information in the list, and to define a clear criteria for it. — Instantnood 10:34, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- I am still researching on this one, made more difficult by just how fractured information on it is. I am now getting the impression that the evolution of air traffic rights via the ICAO and so on made it "neccesary" to establish and designate "national airlines" for the purpose of negotiations [2]. On the other hand, the United States seems to have come to using the term to refer to airlines with "$100 million to $1 billion of annual revenue and service multiple regions with jets such as the 30-passenger CRJ" [3]. Quite an unconventional definition, and probably the reason why it is not used here or other sources.--Huaiwei 16:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Great. I always think that it is the business of the aviation administration of a country, and the airline companies based and registered in that country, to decide on how to allocate among the companies the number of flights of certain routes. — Instantnood 17:38, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Wrong. It is usually the business of the aviation administration of a country to make decisions on air rights allocation, and not that of airlines themselves. Or do you have exceptions to highlight?--Huaiwei 18:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- That was just my impression. Yes it's the civil aviation administration to make the decision, but the airline companies can bargain. :-) — Instantnood 18:44, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- And what an impression it is. Airlines bargaining...erm. That sounds woefully layman. Obviously every single airline on the planet will be demanding for anything which is within their interests, so which airline wont "bargain"? The point being made here, is that it is normally the state which does the actual negotiations on their behalf, and not the airlines themselves.--Huaiwei 19:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Well I said it's their business. :-) — Instantnood 19:34, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Well you said it's their (the airlines) business to "decide on how to allocate among the companies the number of flights of certain routes." Or are you now claiming you didnt say this?--Huaiwei 19:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Ah come on.. take a look at the second meaning of the word decide at Cambridge Dictionaries Online. :-D — Instantnood 18:28, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Well you said it's their (the airlines) business to "decide on how to allocate among the companies the number of flights of certain routes." Or are you now claiming you didnt say this?--Huaiwei 19:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Well I said it's their business. :-) — Instantnood 19:34, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- And what an impression it is. Airlines bargaining...erm. That sounds woefully layman. Obviously every single airline on the planet will be demanding for anything which is within their interests, so which airline wont "bargain"? The point being made here, is that it is normally the state which does the actual negotiations on their behalf, and not the airlines themselves.--Huaiwei 19:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- That was just my impression. Yes it's the civil aviation administration to make the decision, but the airline companies can bargain. :-) — Instantnood 18:44, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Wrong. It is usually the business of the aviation administration of a country to make decisions on air rights allocation, and not that of airlines themselves. Or do you have exceptions to highlight?--Huaiwei 18:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Great. I always think that it is the business of the aviation administration of a country, and the airline companies based and registered in that country, to decide on how to allocate among the companies the number of flights of certain routes. — Instantnood 17:38, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- I am still researching on this one, made more difficult by just how fractured information on it is. I am now getting the impression that the evolution of air traffic rights via the ICAO and so on made it "neccesary" to establish and designate "national airlines" for the purpose of negotiations [2]. On the other hand, the United States seems to have come to using the term to refer to airlines with "$100 million to $1 billion of annual revenue and service multiple regions with jets such as the 30-passenger CRJ" [3]. Quite an unconventional definition, and probably the reason why it is not used here or other sources.--Huaiwei 16:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you. Mind telling how to look for official designation information? I think it is necessary to include such information in the list, and to define a clear criteria for it. — Instantnood 10:34, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Anyway, it is true that different governments may use different criteria in designating a "national airline", but what is obviously important is that the designation must be there. Thailand, for example, actually has two designated national airlines: Thai International And Angel Air, and to remain as such, they have to meet specific fiscal and operational criteria. As national flag carriers, they then usually enjoy greater priviledges in air rights negotiations between governments. Of coz, this isnt always true. In Singapore, air rights will be awarded to any entity which can demonstrate better utilisation of available rights, irregardless of their status. Therefore, it is obviously not enough to say an airline is a "national airline" just by meeting the criteria for any one country. The criteria is not important. The official designation is.--Huaiwei 10:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
-
[edit] Sorted by sovereign States
This begins with User:Huaiwei's edit to move Greenland under Denmark [4]. While I don't entirely agree with it, for consistent sake I moved all non-sovereign entities (e.g. Martinique, Cayman Islands) to their corresponding sovereign States. Comments and opinion are welcome on whether they should be sorted by country (the general sense of the meaning of "country"), or by sovereign States, as it is at the time being. — Instantnood 09:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
- See also talk:list of airlines#Sorted by sovereign States. — Instantnood 10:34, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed merger
Isn't this list practically the same as the "Listed national flag carriers" at Flag carrier? I brought up this issue at Talk:Flag_carrier, but there seems to be little or no activity in that article. ironcito 22:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- It is a bit difficult to discern what a "flag carrier” is in the 21st Century. There appears to be a considerable amount of opinion suggesting that there is some sort of official designation that determines whether or not an airline is a “flag carrier.” If that is the case, then what is the governing board that grants the authority to us the term? Is there some international authority that selects which airline is to be called “flag carrier”? Too frequently the concept of “national airline” and “flag carrier” is merged in to “national flag carrier.” From the standpoint of the US government (see wording on the WikiPage for “Fly America Act”) any and all airlines registered in the United States are flag carriers of the United States. That means the United States has more than 300 flag carriers. If national airline suggests that the nation owns the company, i.e. the government of the nation possess a majority stake in the airline, then “national” airline is logical. However, common supposition is that the “national” airline is the airline containing the name of the nation – not necessarily the one owned by that nation’s government. This creates a dilemma in locations such as Australia; Qantas was long ago privatized so is it still the “national” airline or the “flag carrier”? There is now an airline in Australia called “Australian Airline” so is that not the “national” airline or the “flag carrier” rather than the privatized Qantas? I suggest that both terms are archaic and rendered meaningless in the 21st Century.202.79.62.12 05:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WikiWeakness
WikiWeakness #97 – Compounding incorrect information creates substantiation that is equally as bogus as the original assertion.
This page is riddled with innumerable mistakes, fallacies, and erroneous bits of information. Listing after listing presents things that are either simply incorrect, or are disingenuous – yet contribution after contribution simply add to this long list of fallacies.
- For example – someone listed Air Srpska as the national airline of Republika Srpska. However, there are two fundamental issues that suggest it is ridiculous to list this entry; 1) according to the WikiPage the carrier has been defunct for seven years, and 2) Republika Srpska, by the generally accepted definition, is not a nation… it is a political compromise that sits within the nation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
- For example – Qantas is listed as the national airline of Australia. Why? The government privatized that airline several years ago… so why is it the national airline at this point? Why wouldn’t the relatively new Australian Airline be the national airline?
- For example – under France there are six airlines listed as the national airline of a French Dependency. How can a dependency, territory, protectorate, or colony have a “national” airline?
- For example – under Ghana there is an entry for a “former” national airline. Why? This is a list of national airlines… so why include a “former” ? Either it is, or it is not the national airline
- For example – under Mexico two airlines are listed, both are privately owned companies. So why are they both the national airline?
- For example – under United Arab Emirates an airline is listed as being the national airline for a city. Why? The city is not a nation, the city is a city. How did it become a national airline of a city?
Ultimately this list is worthless. There is no agreement on what makes a “national airline,” there is no governing body with authority to grant the title to an airline, and it is obvious that the cognitive dissonance generated by conflicting information being placed side by side on this page doesn’t really bother the contributors. Why let facts get in the way of a good, long list?
