Talk:Oneworld

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Reads like an ad

This article seems to me like an ad... Especially because of the "we"'s and "our"'s in the text it doesn't resemble the usual, neutral and high-quality Wikipedia-articles. HannsKoenig 14:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Can the oneworld benifits section of this article please be removed as it contravines wikipedia policy. Pustulio 00:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

As someone else stated above, this article reads more like an ad for the company rather than an encyclopedia article. The section with the company's goals is really over the top. In this case, the goals of the company are irrelevant because they're generalized goals like, "We want to have really good service and run our business well." What business doesn't? Stating the goals doesn't give a benefit to the reader of the article. Kjkolb 14:26, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JAL

I have been consistently reverting the changes made by IP address 219.79.62.123 and related addresses. He/she has been moving Japan Airlines from "Possible Future Members" to "Future Members", despite the fact that their application has not actually been approved yet. While it is likely that they will indeed join, they are not technically a future member. I tried to explain this, but he/she refuses to respond to any comments and simply remakes the changes on a daily basis. Since this page is the only one edited by that IP address range, I believe they are doing it simply to create conflict. If someone else starts making the change as well and can give me a reason why, I won't revert it. This person has no interest in listening to reason, and so I will continue to revert his or her changes. Does anyone disagree with me? Dbinder 13:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense to me Dbinder. Once the invitation is issued/accepted then they become a "Future Member", until then anything could happen (remember SWISS anyone?). Technically I guess this makes Malev only a Possible Future Member, but since they have at least signed an MOU leading towards an invitation, it makes sense they stay where they are in the article. OzMikado 00:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bold text in oneworld

Re. Wangi's recent edits to the article, I was under the impression from all official alliance documentation and promotional materials that the correct usage is oneworld, not oneworld. OzMikado 01:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's right but Wikipedia has a manual of style and guidelines on the use of bold, italic etc. It looks a mess as oneworld, hinders those with sight problems and doesn't improve the article. The oneworld logo shows the text as it is rendered by oneworld. Thanks/wangi 09:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Can you point out where in the style guide it indicates that oneworld should not be placed in bold? I see that it says use bold-face judiciously, but I believe that conforming to the correct typeface for a word should qualify (likewise, titles should be capitalized, but oneworld is in all lowercase, as is called for by the company.) Dbinder 13:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Sure, I'd say WP:MOS#Formatting issues and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) cover this fairly well. Thanks/wangi 14:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
OK. I hadn't looked at the trademarks page. Dbinder 16:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Potential Future Members

People seem to be indiscriminately adding carriers to this list simply because they codeshare with an existing member. A carrier should only be there if they are partnered with several members and/or have expressed an interest in joining. Dbinder 13:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Potential future members should all be considered. Turkish Airlines for example is reportedly looking for an alliance to help boost the nation's entry into the EU. TAM Brazilian airlines has a strong marketing program with American, etc..Reader wangi should just not erase because he personally does not agree with valid points provided by other editors. --XLR8TION 02:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Article on Mexicana's and TAM's strong candidacy to become the alliance's newest members: http://transportation.greatholidaysandhotels.com/oneworldallianceoneforall.html America, which is the largest carrier in the Americas requires codesharing with these airlines to expand it's markets in the Americas. Furthermore TAM passengers in many U.S. cities can go to the American counter at an airport for assistance. This indicates a desire on part of both airlines to consolidate services and intensify cooperation. --XLR8TION 02:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I left in every listing that had a reference, and removed those which did not. Please read WP:CITE and WP:NOR. Thanks/wangi 06:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Affiliate Members

I've listed the affiliate members of the alliance as I believe they add more to oneworld than a one-liner. Someone might find a better way of listing them or a less intrusive format, but it's a start. But BA's franchises add a considerable route network to the alliance, and American Eagle's domestic network is too large to ignore.

There also seems to be some confusion in the affiliate airlines articles, as some have been mentioned as "members" (American Eagle, for example) and have the oneworld template added. It would be helpful to have a common approach, whether a new line in the existing template or similar. For starters I'm creating a sub-category for affiliate members.

I don't know what sort of impact this will have on oneworld destinations, as officially these carriers' destinations are on the oneworld network, it's just the carriers themselves that are affiliate status. --Ayrshire--77 09:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

While the carriers themselves are not members, it makes sense to put the oneworld template on their pages. The same has been done with Ted in Star Alliance and Song in SkyTeam. Also, all destinations served by the alliance should be in the alliance destinations page, even if only served by an affiliate/subsidiary. Dbinder 11:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harmony

Should Harmony Airways be added as a potential future member? Harmony already has established a co-operation between itself and Japan Airline, and if I remember correctly, with American Airlines as well. It also recieved designation for scheduled service to China. Spyco 09:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Membership Tiers

At current stage, the Premium status section shows only the tier levels of current member airlines. Should we include the expected tiers of furture airlines (eg. JAL Fly On Crystal = oneworld Ruby) and tiers from the former member airline (Canadian)? Spyco 09:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] oneworld or Oneworld

I thought that the word should be oneworld with small "o" and not with capital "O" since that's how the offical website does it. So how come the word is used with the capital version here? 154.20.61.157 04:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks). As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia needs a consistent style of writing. Many organizations wish that some decorative alteration be a part of their "official" name, but these cause problems when consistency is needed in writing style. The Wikipedia community has determined that where an official name begins with a lowercase letter and has no internal capitals, the first letter should be capitalized. This follows the same procedure as many other publishing organizations, including the Chicago Manual of Style. -- Renesis (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Members leaving the alliance

Where are the sources that state that Iberia is leaving the alliance? On the pages of Star Alliance and Iberia there's no evidence of the airline leaving the alliance, and even joining Star Alliance. There has to be a checklist of the sources. Also, when has an article expressed feelings? Is it valid to say saddly, X and Y are leaving? Einsteinboricua 00:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qantas Subsidiary Jetstar

The oneworld page of affliate airlines does not include Jetstar in the affliate list for Qantas, so I've removed it. Likewise, I doubt that Jetstar Asia (majority owned by Qantas) is part of oneworld as well. --Novelty 02:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Jetstar Australia is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Qantas, but has separate management. Jetstar Airways Australia does have some interlining with their parent (eg Jetstar flights booked via Qantas.com, earning Qantas FP points, and so forth).
Jetstar Asia and Jetstar Airways may be marketed as one brand, but both have separate management. Jetstar Airways Australia is a wholly owned subsidiary of Qantas, while.. Jetstar Asia is majority owned by Singapore company (Orange Star), Qantas only has a part-stake in Jetstar Asia. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dragonair

The oneworld's website stated that Dragonair is the 11th airline pending to join oneworld at this stage, following by 6 airlines in JAL group, Malév, Royal Jordanian, and LAN Ecuador/Argentina. It has the same status as LAN Ecuador/Argetina so should be treated the same. Ernestnywang 04:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Dragonair, as Lan Ecuador and Lan Argentina, will be affiliates. Lan Argentina and Lan Ecuador will be affiliates of Lan Chile, while Dragonair will be an affiliate of Cathay Pacific, since they belong to the same company. Einsteinboricua 13:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:1worldfinsnew.jpg

Image:1worldfinsnew.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 23:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OpenSkies

I have removed OpenSkies from the list of oneworld members. So far, neither British Airways nor the alliance itself has given any indication that OpenSkies will join when service begins this summer. I have looked at BA's official press release as well as OpenSkies' web site and neither mention oneworld membership at all. Also, while reading through a forum discussion (replies 53 and 74), a forum member stated that OpenSkies will not join, and said his only source was one only accessible with a subscription. If anyone has concrete evidence OpenSkies will join oneworld (possibly as an affiliate), please post it back up on the main article and provide a source. MRasco 02:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)