Talk:Qantas/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

Both G-BNLS and G-BIKF are Ba planes?!

JetConnect has been operating many of the trans-Tasman Qantas flights as well as the domestic NZ service for some time, using 737-300s on the NZ register - many ex-Ansett. Now that JetStar is starting to enter the trans-Tasman market, is JetConnect to be wound down? And should it not be listed as a Qantas subsidiary? rerj in Hobart

Contents 1 Safety 2 Hubs/Focus Cities 3 Tell them they're dreaming. 4 advertising-speak 5 Quick Firing ? 6 New York 7 Aircraft Orders 8 Margaret Jackson 9 Pilots' strike 10 Pronunciation 11 Heavy Maintenance 12 Flight numbers 13 2005 News 14 Oldest Airline 15 Requested move 16 Codeshare 17 Accidents and Incidents 17.1 Never lost a jet aircraft 18 Safety 19 Hubs/Focus Cities 20 Tell them they're dreaming. 21 Quick Firing ? 22 New York 23 Aircraft Orders 24 Margaret Jackson 25 Pilots' strike 26 Pronunciation 27 Heavy Maintenance 28 Flight numbers 29 Oldest Airline 30 A380 Regos 31 Requested move 32 Previous year's news 33 Second oldest; not third 34 No longer an acronym 35 CEOs 36 Immediate attention? 37 References 38 Merge Qantas Club Into Qantas Club Section 39 Qantas will always be an acronym 40 Flags 41 Photos 42 Advertisement/ Ethical problem 43 "Controversy" 44 BNE hub 45 Fair use rationale for Image:Qantasff.gif 46 Fair use rationale for Image:Qantasclub.gif 47 Fleet size 48 Fleet 49 Requested move

[edit] Safety

What does the CEO's daughter have to do with the safety of the airline? I think this needs to be rewritten or or removed. WikiDon 04:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

It's got precisely nothing to do with the safety of the airline; in fact, it's got nothing to do with Qantas. Removed with prejudice. --Robert Merkel 05:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Repairs to the nine-year-old aircraft were undertaken in China by TAECO at a cost in excess of A$100 million and it was suggested at the time that this expense was solely to avoid a hull-loss being recorded, a claim Qantas denied. At roughly 1.3 Australian dollars to the US dollar, these repairs are substantially less than the cost of a new 747 (>$200M US), [1] so surely this suggestion was a silly one. If we don't put who made the suggestions, then to me, it seems like a bit of a non-event. Thoughts, anyone? RupertMillard 00:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't value a nine year old plane with half its useful life gone against the price of a new one, would you spend $30000 to fix a nine year old car ? We're also talking 1999 dollars here ($200m now was around $160m then). And then you have to factor in the value of the aircraft if it was parted (aircraft as young as 14-15 years are parted out without ever being in an accident). All things considered, its amazing OJH wasn't written off. I don't recall an aircraft with that much damage (two deatached landing gear, substantial damage to the wing and engine pylons, mud ingested into the engines etc, etc) ever being repaired anywhere (it is the most expensive aircraft repair in history) and these claims were widely made in the media and elsewhere [2], [3]. Andypasto 03:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you for explaining it so well. It might help future simpletons like me to put that it was the most expensive aircraft repair in history in the article. RupertMillard 12:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

None of you wankers even know what you are talking about. Get the facts before you start spruking like experts. I went up to Bangkok after the incident and was involved in the repair work and frankly everything that has been said so far is absolute crap. Get the real facts and figures before you pass judgement or make comment. Tim Sydney

So what are the real facts and figures Tim ? Andypasto 21:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hubs/Focus Cities

How are these determined? LHR is listed as a hub, yet LAX doesn't rate a mention in either. This seems odd as QF flies from LAX to four destinations (AKL, SYD, MEL, BNE), but from LHR to only three (SIN, BKK, HKG). A hub implies spokes, and for QF LHR is only an endpoint - no-one would reasonably connect between QF flights at LHR except for code shares. --kjd 13:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I have moved LHR to be a focus city, because few would connect to different QF flights in London. (Singapore to Hong Kong in 25 hours, anyone?) --kjd 13:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

A hub isn't just a city from which services to other cities depart, but also a) where flights connect with other flights and b) where airlines base crews, fleets, maintenance bases etc. QF announced in late 2004 (early 2005?) that they would base crews at LHR. QF Flights also connect with BA and other oneworld partners at LHR. This might be something to think about is deciding whether LHR and LAX are hubs. (Incidentally, I think that the LHR-HKG flights are code shared and operated by BA, - but I don't think that this would make it any less a hub - if it were to be considered one). I think the best way to answer this question is to find out what QF considers to be its hubs. -I'll see if I can do some research on this point. Adz 04:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

My only extra comment would be that if a hub is defined as being where you can connect to codeshares/alliance flights, then pretty much every major destination (including LAX) would then be a hub. AFAIK QF has no in-house maintainance base at LHR, I've only ever see their jets parked at BA hangars. --kjd 07:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Is Singapore considered a hub for Qantas, then?--Huaiwei 13:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Singapore is regarded by the airline as a hub and has often been reported in the media as such. Regarding kjd's comments however, connecting with codeshared flights in itself does not make a port a hub, but basing crews and other facilities there does, and as far as I am aware, QF does base crews at LHR, so it is different to LAX. I will try to find out more about LHR and get back to you. -- Adz|talk 10:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Having a crew base does not make an airport a hub. The idea of a hub comes from the hub-and-spoke system. An airport must have connecting flights for an airline for it to be considered a hub. For example, United has a crew base in Boston, but no one would call it a hub. Dbinder 16:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tell them they're dreaming.

I admit, I'm mad about planes.

But could someone please add a photo of any or all of Wunala Dreaming , Nalanji Dreaming and Yananyi Dreaming?

-)

Regards, Ben Aveling 05:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. Beautiful planes! I'll have to take a picture of them next time I see them. I actually saw one of them on the weekend, but there was a lot of traffic at the end of the runway and I didn't stop. I took a photograph of the A380 as it overflew Sydney, but I was in the wrong spot, down sun, hidden by trees on Mrs Macquaries Chair and the few shots I could get really suck. And they'd moved it into a hangar by the time I got to the airport. In the meantime, what about using a picture from a press release? --Jumbo 03:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I don’t know how to upload pictures but someone with more wiki knowledge can use these links to get pictures of all three dreaming planes;

Wunala Dreaming: http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=VH-OEJ&distinct_entry=true

Nalanji Dreaming: http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=VH-EBU&distinct_entry=true

Yananyi Dreaming: http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=VH-VXB&distinct_entry=true

Regards, Patm 06:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Patm. It's worth noting however that the images on Airliners.net are protected by copyright. Most photographers who contribute to the site though have their email addresses on the site and it is possible to email them and ask them to release the photos under a GNU Free Documentation License for use on wikipedia. I did it to obtain the pics for the Flight West article. -- Adz|talk 10:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] advertising-speak

"The interior design for the A380 aircraft will provide new levels of comfort for passengers"

"The first flight of the revolutionary new A380 aircraft"

These parts read like an advertising brochure in my mind. Should they be changed?

Jeremyh 06:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right. I've toned it down somewhat. Enough? --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quick Firing ?

Why is this here ? Its ridiculously obscure. Do we have a reference to Bachelor of Arts at the top of the British Airways page or Alcoholics Anonymous at the top of the American Airlines page ? Andypasto 11:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

That is the normal way of referring users to other articles that they might have been looking for. QF is a redirect to the Qantas article. Bachelor of Arts is listed before British Airways on the BA disambig page, and Alcoholics Anonymous is before American Airlines in AA. Feel free to convert QF from a redirect to a disambig and list all meanings there. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New York

In Mid 2005 Qantas annouced it would increase services to Shanghai and Johannesburg and on the 30th of December 2005 Qantas annouced that services to New York would go from 3 per week to 5 per week from early 2006. Looks like somebody has a crystal ball. Wikipedia reports before December on an announcement to be made on December 30!? Anyone know what meaning it's supposed to convey? --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Found the press release from 30 November. Fixed. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aircraft Orders

Just after the Qantas 787 order was announced, I wrote a paragraph in the 2005 News section about the order. Later, another paragraph about the order was added to the Fleet section. They're mostly redundant, but I'd like some opinion on which one should stay and which should be removed. I personally think a mention obviously belongs in the news section, since this is the biggest QF news in a long time. Should some description of the 787 (similar to the paragraph on the A380 that's already there) be put in the Fleet section instead of info on the order itself?

-QFlyer 06:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The photo of the 787, is that a real plane or a computer generated image? Regards, Ben Aveling 02:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

As the 787 does not yet fly it must be computer generated --Denniss 03:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Since the production line for the 717 is about to be closed, with the last plane for Airtran currently being assembled, would it be a good idea to remove the mention of 4 717 being on order?--203.198.148.54 08:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No, because they will be the aircraft presently used by Jetstar, when they get replaced there by A320s. However, they seem to be double-counted with QantasLink, so something needs to be cleaned up to clarify the overlap. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Margaret Jackson

I think the link to Margaret Jackson (charman) links to the wrong Margaret Jackson. HiFiGuy 00:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be the case. I've asked Petaholmes to look into it, as her knowledge of notable Australian women is immense. A quick search reveals no article, so this may be a case where a new stub could be created, but if there is already an article, perhaps under a married or maiden name as for the British politician Margaret Jackson, then we don't want to duplicate existing work. --Jumbo 01:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pilots' strike

Although a lot of people have forgotten about it, the pilots' strike was a watershed moment in industrial relations, particularly for those pilots who were blacklisted. Could someone write about it? - Richardcavell 02:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There's and article at 1989 Australian pilots' strike. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

I found no mention of the pronunciation of the name "Qantas". My understanding is that it's pronounced as kwantas. Can someone please include some information about that in the article? --Cotoco 21:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That is the correct pronunciation, but I'm not sure what the confusion could be. How else could Qantas be pronounced? A bigger problem seems to be the spelling, with many people trying to stick a 'u' in at every opportunity!

-QFlyer 00:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Kantas is what I would expect, similarly to Qatar, qabab (kebob or kebab), Qabalah, etc.

Of course, as English orthography is extremely problematic, there are difficulties both encoding (writing down something you hear) as well as decoding (pronouncing something you read). I've seen the word Qantas written before I heard it spoken; people who have the difficulty you described likely heard the word first, or at least are more used to hearing it than seeing it written (especially as, with such a unique spelling and just one vowel, the word is not hard to memorize).

I checked to see if there was any article under Quantas, and found out it was a redirect to here; therefore, I don't think there's need to mention anything specifically about spelling (after all, Qantas is written all over the page), however, as I said, I think there should be a note about pronunciation. --Cotoco 15:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Its an acronym and not a word so pronounciation would be a problem. But if you mentally add the "U" from Queensland in you get QuANTAS which helps a lot.GraemeLeggett 15:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed an initialism, but it's pronounced as a word -- for some, the definition of acronym. Therefore, it's expected to be pronounced according to some rules (yes, even in English). Plus, unless you know the meaning of the acronym, I don't think the "Queensland" tip helps much, and I think at that point you'd already have learnt the correct pronunciation.

In any case, I don't think it's worth debating this kind of thing, at least here. I'll probably add something to the article in the next couple of days, unless I hear from someone else or someone else does it first. --Cotoco 16:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Arabic pronunciations are much chop in dealing with an Australian airline. Rain Man had no difficulty with pronunciation, for example. --Jumbo 09:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, user N328KF, for adding the information. --Cotoco 16:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the pronunciation from Kwɒntɒs to Kwɒntəs. BTW, The sound of the first consonant is not ambiguous to an Australian reading the name, as that is how we always pronounce a 'q'. --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. I just converted what was there to IPA; I wasn't sure of the accuracy. Dbinder 16:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Quaint Arse ? Kransky 04:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

See IPA chart for English (linked from "pronunciation"). I'd pronounce "Quaint Arse" as Kwæɪnt aːs. --Scott Davis ^Talk 15:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heavy Maintenance

Should we make mention of Qantas totally shuttig down Heavy Maintenance as well as future plans to let go of a number of pilots. I think this is notable seeing as Quantas prides itself on its safety record and without Heavy Maintenance and it's cut on pilots, which both happen to be the most important parts to a safe airliner, would make it just as safe as any other Air line?

They have not announced totally shutting it down—only shutting the Sydney facility and transferring the work to facilities at Avalon Airport and Brisbane International Airport. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flight numbers

Do we really need the list of flights in the article? I'm not sure that such a dynamic item belongs in Wikipedia at all. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, although Qantas International flight numbering is fairly fixed (until Jetstar starts flying anyway), bloating the article with what is effectively the Qantas timetable seems unnecessary to me. Andypasto 22:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Significant routes, such as Sydney-London, Sydney-LAX, maybe. We don't need the Coffs Harbour to Newcastle details. --Jumbo 02:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

That list is only the international flight numbers, which are fairly static, and was merged here as the result of consensus from an AFD vote. I'm not sure if it can be shortened by merging the (odd) outbound and (even) inbound rows for each route. That would make it more balanced. I think a paragraph should be added mentioning the ranges of numbers used for major domestic, regional, and codeshares, but the entire lists should not be added for the smaller routes. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It has been ten days since I raised this question. In 48 hours, I will clip the list to only the most significant routes. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Despite no comment on the talk page, we have shortened the list by merging the outbound and inbound rows. I don't see consensus to trim it further, (it does not contain any routes to or from Newcastle or Coffs Harbour). Do you have an NPOV definition of "most significant"? That should be discussed here. The current definition seems to be "international", which is clear and unambiguous. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess that does need to be discussed. It doesn't much matter to me; I just think the list adds considerably to the clutter (signal:noise) ratio of the article. Perhaps we should include the busiest routes by either RPM, passenger numbers, or some other similar criteria. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 13:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I have split this off into a separate article. The main article is considerably shorter, now. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

We voted not too long ago to delete the separate article. A summary of the list should be in the main article, not a table with every single flight number. See WP:NOT. Dbinder (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the flight number info could be merged into Qantas destinations even though the vote was to merge to the main Qantas article. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

See What wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 02:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Which bit? Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. (last sentence of point 2). --Scott Davis ^Talk 15:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 News

Another thing we don't need is the silly 2005 News subheading. The fact that its now 2006 notwithstanding, this heading seems to be a justification for including information which would otherwise be too trivial or which should be included in the article proper (which it often is redundantly). Andypasto 22:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oldest Airline

Someone changed the line "oldest Austrlian airline" to "oldest continuously running airline". Do you have anything to support this statement? KLM is the oldest - were they temporarily shut down during WWII? Dbinder 16:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Codeshare

I've added the airlines whom Qantas codeshare with, however I am unsure whether a table or a list would be more suitable. As there are a near-infinite number of destinations for some codeshares etc. the entire American Airlines domestic network or British Airways shorthaul domestic routes. This is why I seek advice, I have left both options up until a decision can be made. --Pavlova 08:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Should the AA logo be included in the list? It is one thing to have a list of codeshares, but the logo seems like an endorsement... Jkstark 22:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accidents and Incidents

I have added facts (not opinions) based on an "in house" Qantas publication giving the full details of the 1971 "Mr Brown" Extortion case, including the initial poor communication and mishandling by the police of the drop off, and the final arrest and incarceration details. "The Qantas Extortion Case" by Barry Young, Qantas Public Affairs Department. PRINTED & PUBLISHED BY QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED VICKERS AVENUE, MASCOT Someone may need to reposition the publication details to a more suitable section of the page.

[edit] Never lost a jet aircraft

"the official line from the airline is that they have never lost a jet aircraft". Can anyone provide a cite for this? I'm not aware of the airline *ever* having made a claim regarding safety.Bellthorpe 03:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Changed it.Trentles 15:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Safety

What does the CEO's daughter have to do with the safety of the airline? I think this needs to be rewritten or or removed. WikiDon 04:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

It's got precisely nothing to do with the safety of the airline; in fact, it's got nothing to do with Qantas. Removed with prejudice. --Robert Merkel 05:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Repairs to the nine-year-old aircraft were undertaken in China by TAECO at a cost in excess of A$100 million and it was suggested at the time that this expense was solely to avoid a hull-loss being recorded, a claim Qantas denied. At roughly 1.3 Australian dollars to the US dollar, these repairs are substantially less than the cost of a new 747 (>$200M US), [4] so surely this suggestion was a silly one. If we don't put who made the suggestions, then to me, it seems like a bit of a non-event. Thoughts, anyone? RupertMillard 00:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't value a nine year old plane with half its useful life gone against the price of a new one, would you spend $30000 to fix a nine year old car ? We're also talking 1999 dollars here ($200m now was around $160m then). And then you have to factor in the value of the aircraft if it was parted (aircraft as young as 14-15 years are parted out without ever being in an accident). All things considered, its amazing OJH wasn't written off. I don't recall an aircraft with that much damage (two deatached landing gear, substantial damage to the wing and engine pylons, mud ingested into the engines etc, etc) ever being repaired anywhere (it is the most expensive aircraft repair in history) and these claims were widely made in the media and elsewhere [5], [6]. Andypasto 03:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you for explaining it so well. It might help future simpletons like me to put that it was the most expensive aircraft repair in history in the article. RupertMillard 12:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

None of you wankers even know what you are talking about. Get the facts before you start spruking like experts. I went up to Bangkok after the incident and was involved in the repair work and frankly everything that has been said so far is absolute crap. Get the real facts and figures before you pass judgement or make comment. Tim Sydney

So what are the real facts and figures Tim ? Andypasto 21:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hubs/Focus Cities

How are these determined? LHR is listed as a hub, yet LAX doesn't rate a mention in either. This seems odd as QF flies from LAX to four destinations (AKL, SYD, MEL, BNE), but from LHR to only three (SIN, BKK, HKG). A hub implies spokes, and for QF LHR is only an endpoint - no-one would reasonably connect between QF flights at LHR except for code shares. --kjd 13:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I have moved LHR to be a focus city, because few would connect to different QF flights in London. (Singapore to Hong Kong in 25 hours, anyone?) --kjd 13:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

A hub isn't just a city from which services to other cities depart, but also a) where flights connect with other flights and b) where airlines base crews, fleets, maintenance bases etc. QF announced in late 2004 (early 2005?) that they would base crews at LHR. QF Flights also connect with BA and other oneworld partners at LHR. This might be something to think about is deciding whether LHR and LAX are hubs. (Incidentally, I think that the LHR-HKG flights are code shared and operated by BA, - but I don't think that this would make it any less a hub - if it were to be considered one). I think the best way to answer this question is to find out what QF considers to be its hubs. -I'll see if I can do some research on this point. Adz 04:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

My only extra comment would be that if a hub is defined as being where you can connect to codeshares/alliance flights, then pretty much every major destination (including LAX) would then be a hub. AFAIK QF has no in-house maintainance base at LHR, I've only ever see their jets parked at BA hangars. --kjd 07:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Is Singapore considered a hub for Qantas, then?--Huaiwei 13:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Singapore is regarded by the airline as a hub and has often been reported in the media as such. Regarding kjd's comments however, connecting with codeshared flights in itself does not make a port a hub, but basing crews and other facilities there does, and as far as I am aware, QF does base crews at LHR, so it is different to LAX. I will try to find out more about LHR and get back to you. -- Adz|talk 10:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Having a crew base does not make an airport a hub. The idea of a hub comes from the hub-and-spoke system. An airport must have connecting flights for an airline for it to be considered a hub. For example, United has a crew base in Boston, but no one would call it a hub. Dbinder 16:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The MEL-HKG-LHR flight is operated by QF, so Qantas does operate some flights (alongside with BA and CX) on the HKG-LHR route. I don't think LHR should be considered a hub as it is an endpoint airport; and furthermore code-share and partner flights should not be considered when looking at the hub status of an airport. In my opinion I would consider QF's hub airports to include at least Singapore and the main international airports in Australia. Another thing to consider -- would any airports in New Zealand be considered a hub airport. Two candidates could be AKL (with flights to CHC and WLG in New Zealand; SYD, MEL and BNE in Australia; LAX in North America) or CHC (with flights to all of QF's domestic destinations in New Zealand as well as flights to SYD). James Pole 02:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tell them they're dreaming.

I admit, I'm mad about planes.

But could someone please add a photo of any or all of Wunala Dreaming , Nalanji Dreaming and Yananyi Dreaming?

-)

Regards, Ben Aveling 05:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. Beautiful planes! I'll have to take a picture of them next time I see them. I actually saw one of them on the weekend, but there was a lot of traffic at the end of the runway and I didn't stop. I took a photograph of the A380 as it overflew Sydney, but I was in the wrong spot, down sun, hidden by trees on Mrs Macquaries Chair and the few shots I could get really suck. And they'd moved it into a hangar by the time I got to the airport. In the meantime, what about using a picture from a press release? --Jumbo 03:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I don’t know how to upload pictures but someone with more wiki knowledge can use these links to get pictures of all three dreaming planes;

Wunala Dreaming: http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=VH-OEJ&distinct_entry=true

Nalanji Dreaming: http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=VH-EBU&distinct_entry=true

Yananyi Dreaming: http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=VH-VXB&distinct_entry=true

Regards, Patm 06:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Patm. It's worth noting however that the images on Airliners.net are protected by copyright. Most photographers who contribute to the site though have their email addresses on the site and it is possible to email them and ask them to release the photos under a GNU Free Documentation License for use on wikipedia. I did it to obtain the pics for the Flight West article. -- Adz|talk 10:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Could someone add a picture near the new codesharing agreement section? It looks a bit empty.--Pavlova 07:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quick Firing ?

Why is this here ? Its ridiculously obscure. Do we have a reference to Bachelor of Arts at the top of the British Airways page or Alcoholics Anonymous at the top of the American Airlines page ? Andypasto 11:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

That is the normal way of referring users to other articles that they might have been looking for. QF is a redirect to the Qantas article. Bachelor of Arts is listed before British Airways on the BA disambig page, and Alcoholics Anonymous is before American Airlines in AA. Feel free to convert QF from a redirect to a disambig and list all meanings there. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New York

In Mid 2005 Qantas annouced it would increase services to Shanghai and Johannesburg and on the 30th of December 2005 Qantas annouced that services to New York would go from 3 per week to 5 per week from early 2006. Looks like somebody has a crystal ball. Wikipedia reports before December on an announcement to be made on December 30!? Anyone know what meaning it's supposed to convey? --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Found the press release from 30 November. Fixed. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aircraft Orders

Just after the Qantas 787 order was announced, I wrote a paragraph in the 2005 News section about the order. Later, another paragraph about the order was added to the Fleet section. They're mostly redundant, but I'd like some opinion on which one should stay and which should be removed. I personally think a mention obviously belongs in the news section, since this is the biggest QF news in a long time. Should some description of the 787 (similar to the paragraph on the A380 that's already there) be put in the Fleet section instead of info on the order itself?

-QFlyer 06:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The photo of the 787, is that a real plane or a computer generated image? Regards, Ben Aveling 02:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

As the 787 does not yet fly it must be computer generated --Denniss 03:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Since the production line for the 717 is about to be closed, with the last plane for Airtran currently being assembled, would it be a good idea to remove the mention of 4 717 being on order?--203.198.148.54 08:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No, because they will be the aircraft presently used by Jetstar, when they get replaced there by A320s. However, they seem to be double-counted with QantasLink, so something needs to be cleaned up to clarify the overlap. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Margaret Jackson

I think the link to Margaret Jackson (charman) links to the wrong Margaret Jackson. HiFiGuy 00:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be the case. I've asked Petaholmes to look into it, as her knowledge of notable Australian women is immense. A quick search reveals no article, so this may be a case where a new stub could be created, but if there is already an article, perhaps under a married or maiden name as for the British politician Margaret Jackson, then we don't want to duplicate existing work. --Jumbo 01:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pilots' strike

Although a lot of people have forgotten about it, the pilots' strike was a watershed moment in industrial relations, particularly for those pilots who were blacklisted. Could someone write about it? - Richardcavell 02:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There's and article at 1989 Australian pilots' strike. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

I found no mention of the pronunciation of the name "Qantas". My understanding is that it's pronounced as kwantas. Can someone please include some information about that in the article? --Cotoco 21:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That is the correct pronunciation, but I'm not sure what the confusion could be. How else could Qantas be pronounced? A bigger problem seems to be the spelling, with many people trying to stick a 'u' in at every opportunity!

-QFlyer 00:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Kantas is what I would expect, similarly to Qatar, qabab (kebob or kebab), Qabalah, etc.

Of course, as English orthography is extremely problematic, there are difficulties both encoding (writing down something you hear) as well as decoding (pronouncing something you read). I've seen the word Qantas written before I heard it spoken; people who have the difficulty you described likely heard the word first, or at least are more used to hearing it than seeing it written (especially as, with such a unique spelling and just one vowel, the word is not hard to memorize).

I checked to see if there was any article under Quantas, and found out it was a redirect to here; therefore, I don't think there's need to mention anything specifically about spelling (after all, Qantas is written all over the page), however, as I said, I think there should be a note about pronunciation. --Cotoco 15:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Its an acronym and not a word so pronounciation would be a problem. But if you mentally add the "U" from Queensland in you get QuANTAS which helps a lot.GraemeLeggett 15:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed an initialism, but it's pronounced as a word -- for some, the definition of acronym. Therefore, it's expected to be pronounced according to some rules (yes, even in English). Plus, unless you know the meaning of the acronym, I don't think the "Queensland" tip helps much, and I think at that point you'd already have learnt the correct pronunciation.

In any case, I don't think it's worth debating this kind of thing, at least here. I'll probably add something to the article in the next couple of days, unless I hear from someone else or someone else does it first. --Cotoco 16:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Arabic pronunciations are much chop in dealing with an Australian airline. Rain Man had no difficulty with pronunciation, for example. --Jumbo 09:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, user N328KF, for adding the information. --Cotoco 16:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the pronunciation from Kwɒntɒs to Kwɒntəs. BTW, The sound of the first consonant is not ambiguous to an Australian reading the name, as that is how we always pronounce a 'q'. --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. I just converted what was there to IPA; I wasn't sure of the accuracy. Dbinder 16:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Quaint Arse ? Kransky 04:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

See IPA chart for English (linked from "pronunciation"). I'd pronounce "Quaint Arse" as Kwæɪnt aːs. --Scott Davis ^Talk 15:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

From an Australian point of view (and how I have known it for more than 40 years) - QANTAS is pronounced in the following way: QANT/AS - 'QANT' as in 'quantity and 'AS' as in 'us' (not arse) but as in you, me, we, US. Say both together as one word 6 times fast so that is flows to one word and you have the way an Australian would say it.DeafCom 20:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Quaint Arse ? LMFAO - That is an Australian 'nickname' for QANTAS by aussies :P DeafCom 20:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Edited the pronunciation to reflect what is common in southeastern Australia and used invariably in their own advertising: kʊɔntəs. Walkingmelways 12:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heavy Maintenance

Should we make mention of Qantas totally shuttig down Heavy Maintenance as well as future plans to let go of a number of pilots. I think this is notable seeing as Quantas prides itself on its safety record and without Heavy Maintenance and it's cut on pilots, which both happen to be the most important parts to a safe airliner, would make it just as safe as any other Air line?

They have not announced totally shutting it down—only shutting the Sydney facility and transferring the work to facilities at Avalon Airport and Brisbane Airport. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flight numbers

Do we really need the list of flights in the article? I'm not sure that such a dynamic item belongs in Wikipedia at all. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, although Qantas International flight numbering is fairly fixed (until Jetstar starts flying anyway), bloating the article with what is effectively the Qantas timetable seems unnecessary to me. Andypasto 22:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Significant routes, such as Sydney-London, Sydney-LAX, maybe. We don't need the Coffs Harbour to Newcastle details. --Jumbo 02:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

That list is only the international flight numbers, which are fairly static, and was merged here as the result of consensus from an AFD vote. I'm not sure if it can be shortened by merging the (odd) outbound and (even) inbound rows for each route. That would make it more balanced. I think a paragraph should be added mentioning the ranges of numbers used for major domestic, regional, and codeshares, but the entire lists should not be added for the smaller routes. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It has been ten days since I raised this question. In 48 hours, I will clip the list to only the most significant routes. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Despite no comment on the talk page, we have shortened the list by merging the outbound and inbound rows. I don't see consensus to trim it further, (it does not contain any routes to or from Newcastle or Coffs Harbour). Do you have an NPOV definition of "most significant"? That should be discussed here. The current definition seems to be "international", which is clear and unambiguous. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess that does need to be discussed. It doesn't much matter to me; I just think the list adds considerably to the clutter (signal:noise) ratio of the article. Perhaps we should include the busiest routes by either RPM, passenger numbers, or some other similar criteria. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 13:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I have split this off into a separate article. The main article is considerably shorter, now. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

We voted not too long ago to delete the separate article. A summary of the list should be in the main article, not a table with every single flight number. See WP:NOT. Dbinder (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the flight number info could be merged into Qantas destinations even though the vote was to merge to the main Qantas article. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 02:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Which bit? Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. (last sentence of point 2). --Scott Davis ^Talk 15:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be put on a new separate page, similar to the Destinations page--Pavlova 07:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oldest Airline

Someone changed the line "oldest Austrlian airline" to "oldest continuously running airline". Do you have anything to support this statement? KLM is the oldest - were they temporarily shut down during WWII? Dbinder 16:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A380 Regos

In the fleet table, someone has noted that Qantas' A380s will be registered starting with VH-QRA. I have seen in least a couple different places that the first A380 will be registered VH-OQA. Does someone have a reliable source that suggests VH-QRA is the correct one?

-QFlyer 09:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed the registration given in the A380 section to VH-OQA. Both Australian Aviation magazine and airlinerlist.com show this to be correct.

-QFlyer 12:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Previous year's news

Just up a bit is a comment about "2005 News" being unnessecary. What should happen is that at the end of the year (or so), the "news" items should be reviewed... if they are historic they should be moved to the history section, if they are trivial they should be removed.Garrie 00:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second oldest; not third

Qantas is the worlds second oldest continuously running independent airline, because of the Air France KLM merger.

[edit] No longer an acronym

Qantas is considered (by Qantas) to be a name, not an an acronym. It is derived from an acronym, but the phrase for which the acronym stood is no longer applicable. That's why it's Qantas and not QANTAS. 139.163.138.10 06:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CEOs

I deleted: 'John Menadue was Chief Executive Officer of Qantas from June 1986 to July 1989" because he is the only CEO mentioned. Perhaps a table of CEOs could be put together.--Grahamec 23:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Immediate attention?

The WP Australia tag states that this article needs immediate attention. ????? Brian Jason Drake 05:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

[edit] Merge Qantas Club Into Qantas Club Section

I believe the Qantas Club article should be merged into this article. Many major US airlines have their club merged into the article.--Golich17 00:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: there seems to be a merge tag on both the Qantas Club article and the Naming of Qantas aircraft article (but no link for discussion purposes is marked on the latter article). I presume the reason for splitting them off the Qantas pages in the first place was length, and this is not addressed by refering to US airlines. I don't see any problem with having separate articles as long as they are up to standard.--Grahamec 02:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We recently just took the fleet names out of the article as they were deemed to be too big for the article. US Airlines are examples to all airline pages as they are the hardest to layout. I am not really reffering to this article as one, but Qantas is a large airline and I believe it should be layed out just as other large airlines.--Golich17 02:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If you mean you took out the fleet names to make room for the Club stuff, I don't object.--Grahamec 03:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Should I go ahead and merge it, because I will be more than happy to do so.--Golich17 21:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Support, but we appear to have had a partial merge already. Should the merge notice on the Naming of Qantas aircraft article be taken off since it is not linked to any discussion?--Grahamec 02:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Strongly support - should never have been made into its own article in the first place. DB (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Support - Qantas Club should be in the Qantas article and not separate. I was surprised at the spin off of fleet naming - I don't believe we should follow the US airlines examples to the letter in all regards. However, as as long as it exists as a separate page, that's okay... Trentles 14:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - There is enough relevant information about Qantas Club available which justifies its existence as a separate article. The only problem is that it doesn't currently appear in the current Qantas Club entry. QC is a separate service and product of Qantas and not part of its standard aircraft operations. Recommend that the QC entry be updated and expanded. If this doesn't happen, then merge it with Qantas. michaeljbarry 17:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - What qualifies as relevant? All of this info is directly available from Qantas's website; and it reads like an ad right now. DB (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Qantas will always be an acronym

I have changed the first paragraph to read that Qantas is an Acronym and as long as it is Qantas it will always be an acronym however I have noted it is no longer called by its longer name does anyone know when they stopped using the longer name?--Matt 07:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"QANTAS" will always be an acronym, however that is no longer the name of the company or the airline it runs. They are both "Qantas", which is just a proper noun derived from the acronym. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flags

Not finding the word "flag" on this talk page, I wonder why flags are constantly being added to and removed from the article. Brian Jason Drake 02:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Golich17 seems to have gone through deleting them from all airline pages. See contributions here. I think these add significantly to the page. It makes it clear where an airline is from at a glance, without having to click on the airline page. Same for locations, because it saves us from having to write the country for each destination. Visually, if we're going to have a bullet-pointed list, the bullet points might as well be the appropriate flags, because the flags add value and information, while a plain bullet point adds nothing. Crocodile Punter 07:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly dislike the flags added to airliner Codeshare tables. The flags relate to a country but the articles are about airlines. I think they are pointless because most readers will recognise only a small proportion of them so actually very little information is added compared with adding the country names (which I also think unnecessary). If the reader wants to know the country (and remember that only already knowledgeable readers are likely to be reading CodeShare lists!) then they can click on the airline name to find out.

More important than that, they make the article look strange. To suddenly come across rows of flags in an airline article is a visual shock ie it's bad page design.

Gollich has been removing them (he added them in the first place) probably because I wrote to him to express my opposition. I think there has been discussion about this and the conclusion was that flags were undesirable on airline articles - Adrian Pingstone 09:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

I'd like a few different photos to be used rather than 747s ad nausium. Specifically, it would be nice to have a 707-338C or 747-200B in the 1970s scheme. In addition, a Boeing 737-800 or an Airbus A330 would be nice. If anyone finds pics of those and uploads them, let me know here and I'll integrate them into the page and remove some of the plethora of 747-400s landing and taking off that we have now. Trentles 15:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the only 737-800 photo I can find in my happy snaps. If you want it, I'll upload a bigger one to Commons. I'm afraid it's got RAAF Roulettes in the foreground, and the ground/horizon is not quite level, so I haven't put it in the article myself. Photo taken 8 October 2005 at the open day before the new terminal at Adelaide International Airport was opened. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I found a couple more. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advertisement/ Ethical problem

Is it just me, or this page look rather like an advertisement for Qantas? "Frequent Flyer", "Qantas club" are PROMOTIONS of the company which can change quickly and are hard to keep track of. Plus Wikipedia is not supposed to do marketing for the company. I think it's unethic to keep such sections here. We should inform about the history of the company, importance of the company in the history, and current operations at most.200.222.3.3 23:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Frequent flyer programs do not change particularly quickly. It's not "an advertisement" to dispassionately list the various long-term programs offered by Qantas. What perhaps would be an advertisement would be language like "World's best frequent-flyer program," and keeping a comprehensive list of every bonus promotion ever offered by the airline would certainly be overkill. FCYTravis 02:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

... except to say that I think there has been a need for a little more balance. The frequent flyer program in particular has faced criticism in recent years regarding lack of availability of seats for point redeemers, even attracting an investigation from regulators. I've added some comment to this effect. Murtoa 08:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Controversy"

I'm not sure that the anti-Bush T-shirt event is significant enough for an encyclopedic entry. People are refused boarding all the time. The political protest makes it newsworthy but this is wikipedia not news.com. --Grinning Idiot 17:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has responded to this so I have removed the silly t-shirt bit. Seriously folks, if anybody is interested in info about Qantas, do you really think they care if some nobody once got refused boarding because they were dressed inappropriately? Who cares? --Grinning Idiot 16:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is news rather than encyclopedic but I think it is a tad important... If its in wikinews we could put a link to it or something... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asteroixiii (talk • contribs) 08:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It was not important or even notable in April 2007, I dont think it needs a link. MilborneOne 18:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BNE hub

Could Brisbane be considered a Qantas hub? The airline has a lot of destinations from there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.249.65.188 (talk • contribs).

No it is not, Qantas' Australian hubs are Melbourne and Sydney Airports. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mvjs (talk • contribs).

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Qantasff.gif

Image:Qantasff.gif 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 this Wikipedia article 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. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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.BetacommandBot 03:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Qantasclub.gif

Image:Qantasclub.gif 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 this Wikipedia article 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. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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.BetacommandBot 03:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fleet size

User:Sparrowman980 has recently found it neccesary to change the article's fleet size figure from 125 to 231 [7] [8] [9] without providing any sources, and despite this being in conflict with figures provided in the article's fleet table. I understand it is within our guidelines not to include aircraft operated by subsidiaries etc, so I wonder if we are allowing an exception in this case?--Huaiwei 14:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• It's been referenced for a little while now. That covers all Qantas' subsidiries. Seems fair as Qantas has transferred aircraft to a subsidiary without a sale. I don't see anywhere on the Airlines project page where that is prevented. -Fnlayson 13:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Fnlayson, it is NOT common practice within the Airline project to include subsidiaries, and actually each operator has its own AOC, therefore they are not operated by Qantas but by the legal holder of the AOC. Qantas can claim all that is likes but the referenced edit by myself cites the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and as far as I am concerned, and can quite rightly argue, they are the be all and end all of aircraft operations in this country, and this source should be used, above any PR source put out by QF. --Russavia 14:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• You got it fixed after a couple edits. You have no reason to imply they are lying with the PR comment when it clearly states subsidiaries are involved. -Fnlayson 14:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do, as PR is just that, PR/marketing/huff&puff, hell, Qantas could say that the tails on their aircraft are blue, but evidence shows this is not correct - do we then go by what Qantas says? Sorry, but this is not the way that Wikipedia works. Regardless, I have had it with dealing with fanboy pages on this supposed encyclopaedia, so change the figure to 5000 for all I care, there are many people who will simply laugh at such rubbish, and I don't want my name attached to it in any way, shape or form. --Russavia 12:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fleet

Should the 15 787s for Jetstar be included in the Qantas orders? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 166.49.198.26 (talk • contribs).

No, put that in Jetstar. This article is for Qantas, not it's child airline. Aflumpire 22:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Should the Airline Parners Australia be merged out of Qantas and into the main Airline Parners Australia article? I think it should, with just a line or two about this being left in the main article. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 166.49.198.26 (talk • contribs).