Talk:World's largest airlines

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
List This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 19 August 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on August 20, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Germanwings?

Germanwings had 7,500,000 passengers last year according to their webpage, why are they not in the European ranking? (They don't seem to be subsumed with Lufthansa, because the 51M is Lufthansa group proper.)

[edit] Revenue rank?

Anybody care to put up some revenue rankings?--Jerryseinfeld 18:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

For the global rankings? Anyway....considering this list may keep growing, how about we branch it out to seperate lists as has been done for the corresponding airports pages?--Huaiwei 09:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] what about qantas?

I would have thought that qantas would get on this page, maybe we should start a pacific section?


Good idea, anyways these #s are waaaay off.

[edit] air canada has 336 aircraft not 329

in the list of no. of airplanes per airline, it says air canada has 329, but actually air canada has 336 aircraft.(check the air canada article for more clarification) Someone change it

So fix it. The button says edit this page. Cool Bluetalk to me 20:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No section title

These figures are way, way off. --Mets 05:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International

Re [1] - User:Huaiwei prefers " flights within the People's Republic of China ", while I prefer " flights to mainland China ". While both are technically correct, the former is illogical in the sense that it's in effect even defining flights within Hong Kong (or within Macao) as international, which is ridiculous. — Instantnood 19:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hong Kong has one airport that serves airlines. Macau has one airport that serves airlines. Therefore, there are no flights WITHIN Hong Kong or Macau that are not to other international destinations. You have previously argued that things like helicopters or private aviation are exceptions. But, as this is a list of large airlines, it has nothing to do with helicopters and private aviation. Even in other cases, those exceptions to the general may be more accurate, but it is less useful to the reader of a general encyclopedia to worry about such minor exceptions. SchmuckyTheCat 19:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
There are airlines offering scheduled helicopter services, but that's not quite relevant to the discussion here, since only Cathay Pacific, Dragonair and Air Macau are on the list. Defining international by " all flights within the People's Republic of China " is illogical in the sense that it's defining flights within Hong Kong (or within Macao) as international. The key issue that has to be addressed in the footnote is that flights between Hong Kong and mainland China, or Macao and mainland China, are classified as international, despite within the same sovereign state. — Instantnood 20:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
And so flights between HK and Macau are domestic? Allow me to just remind, that the footnote was actually not meant to describe all possible scenarios, but all existing airline flights, considering they are footnotes of airline passenger figures currently available. To say there are XXX passengers from point A and B, and to have a footnote to XXX saying some of these passengers were treated as International despite flying within the same country makes perfect sense. We dont have to consider discussing the possibility of rockets zooming off from HK into outer space and slamming back into it later now or in the distant future, for that is obviously beyond its scope.--Huaiwei 03:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The footnote is intended for tell why flights within the same sovereign state could be international. Therefore it should tell what exactly is considered international. Flights between Hong Kong or Macao and mainland China, and flights between Hong Kong and Macao, are considered international. Flights within mainland China (or within Hong Kong, or within Macao) are not. In other words, flights within the PRC may or may not be international. — Instantnood 15:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I was the one who introduced the footnotes, and my intention is to provide footnotes for the statistics in question, and not a lengthy explaination on cross-border political situations. For the record, you chose to wikiwar with me even when the sentence reads Flights between the special administrative regions of Hong Kong, Macau and the rest of the People's Republic of China are classified as "International", which would have easily covered whatever you attempted to explain above, but of course you must amend it since a certain favourite keyphrase of yours is missing, I recon?--Huaiwei 17:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
" I was the one who introduced the footnotes, and my intention is to .. " - Nobody owns the footnotes. — Instantnood 18:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure. Nobody takes subsequent ownership of foodnotes too.--Huaiwei 18:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No section title

From the Wikipedia entry about Delta Airlines:

It is the 2nd largest airline in the United States (Behind American Airlines)

From the Wikipedia entry about American Airlines:

American Airlines is the largest airline in the world in terms of total passengers transported and fleet size,...

--->Something wrong about that figure on this page, isn´t it ?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.122.78.63 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Disputed Stats

These figures are way, way off. --Mets 05:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

What are these numbers? Passenger miles? Seat miles? Flight seats?

I seriously doubt Aeroflot is larger than Lufthansa, British Airways or the new Air France-KLM except perhaps in unnecessary personnel and ancient planes. 141.53.194.249 13:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the above - the figures also appear to have no date references - how current are the figures? You can't tell how up to date this is. Ardfern 19:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

IBERIA , www.iberia.com , in the press release of January 12, 2006 , reported all it's passengers statistics for 2005 . 2005 schedule passengers 27.675.000 (domestic 15.415.000 , international 12.260.000). 2005 ASK 63.628.000 2005 RPK 49.060.000 2005 load factor was 77.1 % . 2005 net profit of 385 millions euros . 10th consecutive year of net profits .

But Iberia flies with an afiliate company called Air Nostrum . Use the same livery , same code . You cannot diferenciate Iberia from Air Nostrum , so i think Iberia total passenger numbers MUST count Air Nostrum as well .

27.675.000 + 4,689,263 = 32,364,263 Passengers in 2005 .

  • I changed the stats to the 2005 versions in the world section they seem to be more accurate. Greenboxed 22:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should each area have its own artcle?

Does anyone think the article would be better organized if each continent had its own article (ie: Largest Airlines of Europe)? Greenboxed 22:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur, although it may make more sense to split the article according to ranking criteria first as has been done for airports and Maritime ports--Huaiwei 12:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't help. This article is mostly statistics and isn't overly large or disorganized. SchmuckyTheCat 16:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I have split the articles as suggested, and to follow the format in World's largest airline for example. This should give room for list expansion in their respective articles.--Huaiwei 15:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Africa

Kenya Airways produces more revenue and profit than Ethiopian Airlines. Kenya Airways also fly larger aircraft; EA's fleet is only larger because they have many small planes in their fleet... an example being Fokkers.

Kenya Airways also carries more scheduled passengers.

[edit] Fedex

according to the Wikipedia page.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Express#Fleet. FedEx has 626 aircraft plus 18 on order.

We aren't reliable. We don't trust ourselves most of the time. Cool Bluetalk to me 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I started to cleanup the article by adding a table for the first set of data. Any comments please speak! --Flymeoutofhere 11:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sweet. I was looking to do something like that here but never really had the time. Next step after we do that is to find some way to verify this information, but otherwise you're off to the right start. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 15:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if I'll have time to do it all, either. If someone else wants to, feel free to do so. Flymeoutofhere 12:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IATA & Southwest Airlines

Firstly, this article needs some cleanup... The stats are all discombobulated...

Secondly, the IATA stats cited in the first part of the article do not include Southwest Airlines, which is ranked third in the world for number of passengers carried.

Perhaps some newer stats?

[edit] quick thank you

to all you guys who put this page together - great job!

lets make sure this stays updated though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Htg (talk • contribs) 06:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] More International

There is something wrong with the IATA numbers shown in the citation previously on the page for international travellers. This lists the total number of passengers that Ryanair carried in 2006. (Currently year to date they are up to about 43 million - http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/news.php?yr=07&month=jun&story=pax-en-050607) But by no means were all of those passengers international. Ryanair flies domestic routes in several countries. I have put a Fact tag on the list for this reason. Unless someone can cite a source to explain the disparity, I don't think we can rely on those figures. Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have returned the cn tag to the international passengers table as the IATA stats cannot be relied on. Ryanair hasdomestic flights in several countries including Ireland, the UK, Italy and Spain. IATA is saying that the total number of passengers Ryanair carried last year (a shade over 40 million) were international. That is simply not the case, and so the IATA stats must be suspect. Harry was a white dog with black spots 20:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
According to the IATA, the numbers on it's website is what is reported by each individual airline. Seen here.] By the the way, since the numbers from the IATA website are what is currently in the article, the IATA website should be listed as the source. --Michael Greiner 19:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Well then clearly Ryanair is lying in what they are reporting. (BTW, these are not IATA figures. They are being reported by IATA from other sources.) Ryanair is clear on its website that it carried a total of 40.5 million passengers in 2006, including all domestic ones (see link in the footnote to the figures). If it is reporting to official sources that it carried 40.5 million international passengers, it is trying to mislead people. Wikipedia should not use sources that have been manipulated as these figures are. Another source is needed to justify the numbers. Citing a source that is clearly wrong, even if it is an official one, is not good enough. Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Nearly all Ryanair flights are international, very few flights are domestic within Ireland, which explains why the total and international figures are very close. I would suggest that we should change Note 1 to reflect this viewpoint. MilborneOne 16:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
A domestic flight is a flight entirely within the borders of one country, not necessarily the country where the airline is based. So their flights between Pisa and Alghero in Italy are classed as domestic for example, not just their flights in Ireland. The total and international figures are not just "very close" - they are identical. So either way, there is something wrong. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Correct and wrong at the same time. While the definition of a "domestic flight" is correct, it is certainly dependent on just where the airline is based at. A flight operated "domestically" within the same country an airline is based and a "domestic" flight in a country other than the airline's home country requires entirely different air rights, the later of which is very much rarer in the industry. Therefore, it is an industry practise not to classify the later as "domestic".--Huaiwei 01:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but within the EU open skies agreement, the EU constitutes one market for its members when it comes to cabotage. Therefore a flight entirely within the EU could almost be classed as "domestic". But very few airlines (Air Berlin and Easyjet being two but nowhere on the scale of Ryanair) actually operate domestic flights in countries where they are not registered. Ryanair is unique in the extent that it does this, so the position does need to be clarified. But it is certainly true that not all Ryanair flights are international, so the figures remain suspect. Harry was a white dog with black spots 08:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
An open-skies agreement dosent mean a cabotage flight suddenly becomes a domestic one (in the classic sense). We may discuss till the dawn of time, but unless you can cite a verfiable true-life example of any airline which actually classifies cabotage flights as domestic flights, then we arent going to get very far. On the other hand, I know of several airlines who do not do as you claim. In the Asian market alone, Singapore Airlines flies between Johannesburg and Cape Town, but all its flights are classified international. Emirates Airline fly between Rome and Milan, but do not report any domestic flights. Cathay Pacific flies between Cairns and Brisbane, Adelaide and Melbourne as well as Penang and Kuala Lumpur, but is also considered a fully international airline.--Huaiwei 10:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I just double-verified Ryanair's figures, and they show 42.5 million total passengers flown in 2006[2]. This compares with IATA's 40.532 million international passengers. Are there still doubts about these figures, for they arent exactly "the same"?--Huaiwei 01:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well then Ryanair is lying in the link you put above, because their rolling year-on-year stats show a total of 40.532 million passengers as at the end of December 2006. They didn't reach 42.5 million year-on-year until March 2007, according to their rolling stats. Why the difference? So yes, there are still doubts. Harry was a white dog with black spots 09:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hah well they probably can't decide if they are supposed to factor in no-shows then? :D Your concers are probably valid, but I do find that note a tad too long.--Huaiwei 10:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NEW WAY IT LOOKS

the old way looked better i think it should be reverted.(Sparrowman980)

Wikipedia isnt just about asthetics. We have to consider usability and ease of content management. The old list was way too long, and there is not much room left to consider other possible means of measuring an airline's size. Ideas to split the list up into multiple pages has been mooted since last year, and I have decided to be bold and go ahead with it, such that it is similar in style somewhat to World's busiest port.--Huaiwei 16:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You are required to ask and have people agree to it.(Sparrowman980)

I did tell you to read, didnt I? Check the discussions above this page. If you cannot offer a better reason for your constant reverts, I will tag your edits as vandalism and sound out the admins accordingly.--Huaiwei 03:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

For what you are doing you must ask and if you want to bring admins in it i would like to what your doing is BS!Do it right.

To repeat myself, there has been prior discussions on this. Kindly do some reading before constantly repeating the same refrain.--Huaiwei 03:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

K so i read and they said they you shouldn't! "Quote:No, it wouldn't help. This article is mostly statistics and isn't overly large or disorganized. SchmuckyTheCat 16:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)(Sparrowman980 04:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

One user stated reservations that it may not be neccesary as he felt the page won't grow much further. That was a full eight months ago, when the page wasent that huge yet.[3] The page has apparantly grown alot since then, so is his comment still relevant? Kindly note the context.--Huaiwei 04:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that those comments are not relevant any more so what you did is 8 months old so you should re-discuss it then! (Sparrowman980 04:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

I have great difficulty comprehending the logic behind your last comment.--Huaiwei 04:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New format Redux

As even an administrator has found my edits too bold and devoid of previous discussions despite obvious evidence of this, I would like to make another request for editors to review my revamped version. There are several reasons for this:

  • It trims the article down to a manageable size, such that there is room for expansion to include historical lists (the world's largest airlines 50 years ago is most likely quite different and not any less encyclopedic) in individual, smaller articles.
  • A trimmer article can also account for the fact that there are multiple means of measuring airline sizes, most of which are not mentioned at all in the old version, and which will not have much space to discuss them anyway, let alone providing a list for each possible means of measure.
  • My proposed format is not new. World's busiest airport and World's busiest port already follow this format. There is little reason why this should be left out, since it has worked fine for the other two.

If there are no major disagreements in the following days, I will restore the stripped-down version as quoted above, but including any edits made by users to the existing list of course. Please offer your feedback. Thanks!--Huaiwei 14:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no need to do it so what if some others have that format we really no need.(Sparrowman980 14:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC))
Kindly explain why this is unnecesary, especially in light of the reasoning I offered above. Could you offer a viable alternative solution especially since the current list is obviously too long to contain all information neccesary for a less POVed article which only considers some means of measure, but not others?--Huaiwei 14:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Until there is a agreement and others agree or diagree to this we must wait.(Sparrowman980 01:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC))
And wait for? Another AFD? It is interesting to note that in the recent AFD, the nominator has actually expressed preference for the condensed version which I proposed. Another user has also suggested a page split, although that is probably because the list as it is only ranks airlines by passenger numbers and fleet sizes anyway. The only one who has been opposing the move is you, and the only reasoning you could provide was the "need to discuss major changes". I take that as null and void since there has obviously been a previous dicussion, and there is one now as we speak.--Huaiwei 08:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The current format sux, it is too big, and duplicates all the by continent articles. SchmuckyTheCat

Thanks. Your previous comment[4] has been taken as an excuse to revert war.[5] I hope that comment no longer applies as strongly this time round, considering the article has grown much bigger ever since?--Huaiwei 08:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh btw in case you are not aware, I was the one who created all those sub-articles with ranks by continent and other means of measure, and have downsized this article to this version as per my reasons stated above. Do comment. Thanks!--Huaiwei 08:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm not tracking exactly what is missing or added in the little spat between you and the sparrowman. I'm trying to make summary style tables of the "per continent" sections. Then hopefully kill the sections entirely and make one table with a column for continent. I think your proposed lead has more information in it, and that is a good thing. Sparrowman wants way too much information (which is just data, not article text) thrown directly in the users face, which is not a good thing. My previous comments of a year or more ago no longer apply to the current article. SchmuckyTheCat
Great. Meanwhile, your summary table idea sounds interesting. Any proposed samples for this?--Huaiwei 14:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so good with the tables creation - but, method: Combine all the current tables into a single one. Add an additional column labeled "Continent". Sort. SchmuckyTheCat
This sounds like a good idea. Dave Rebecca 19:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What we should have is one list of the largest airlines by fleet and passengers then the names of the continents and there largest airlines if that sounds good?(Sparrowman980 02:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

I mentioned time and again that the current article, which only lists airlines by a few means of measure is not adequate, and that has been one of the primary reason why I see a need to trim it to give space for other means of measure. Your "solution" to lists airlines by passengers carried and fleet size, does not address this at all, and only makes this worse. Kindly put some thought into your ideas before suggesting them. Notice you arent even commenting on why your solution is good.--Huaiwei 12:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If there are no further opposition lodged, I will effect the above changes in a few days time. I my attempt to include the suggested summary table if possible.--Huaiwei 14:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Before you go changing we need a better consensus from the other editors and two is not enough(Sparrowman980 08:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC))

Aa far as anyone can see, you are the sole person opposing the move, yet providing zero reason for sticking to your stand. So in actual fact, no valid opposition has yet to be lodged. The move will proceed if the status quo remains.--Huaiwei 12:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all there are 2 people that have only came on this article once and they have not returned since and i well continue to argue this and fight this until you or i get banned!(Sparrowman980 05:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC))

Are you threatening me? Just because I choose not to comment doesn't mean I don't still think this article needs work. SchmuckyTheCat

Now i never threatened you or anyone and also it needs work but just changing it the way he has it wont fix it !(Sparrowman980 07:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Requested move

User:Sparrowman980 recently moved this page from World's largest airline to The World's largest airlines. This undiscussed moved contravenes the naming conventions on at least three counts: Prefer singular nouns, Avoid the definite article ("the") at the beginning of the page name, and Lowercase second and subsequent words in titles (some may feel World is a proper noun thou). I was able to remove the "the", to where it is now, but I could not move it back to where it was. Kindly voice any objections for the above move request if you have any, particularly after taking into account relevant naming convention guidelines.--Huaiwei 12:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Singular titles are preferred in most cases, but not when they would yield titles that don't make sense. Sports teams, for example, keep their plural forms. This article is not about "the world's largest airline" and doesn't try to be. A list title would take care of the plural problem. I'd suggest List of airlines by size or something along those lines. Dekimasuよ! 14:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
It may be, if my proposed revamp of this article is reinstated. Note also World's busiest airport and World's busiest port. The subject in question is no longer a list of entities, but the claim of "world's largest foo" itself. Btw, names of sports teams are proper nouns, and will be plural if that is the official name of the said entity. This, on the other hand, is not a proper noun.--Huaiwei 14:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well i understand you are on my case about everything but largest airline means on airline so airlines makes sense.(Sparrowman980 04:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC))

Not that I can help it, as you continue to wreak havoc in the same few articles, and without consultation to boot, so that was kinda ironical I would think!--Huaiwei 14:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 16:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] not wikipedia?

Is there a reason this article doesn't fit into the what Wikipedia is not statistics which states

Statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readibility and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource as freely available reference material for the construction of related encyclopedic articles on that topic. Infoboxes or tables should also be considered to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists.

perhaps it should be moved to wikisource or get serious amounts of non-tabled text and information. Pdbailey 21:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've looked over what we have with this article and its "sister" articles (List of largest airlines in Europe, List of largest airlines in Asia, List of largest airlines in Oceania, and List of largest airlines in Africa). I see that there are the two methods of measuring an airlines size: by fleet size or by scheduled passengers carried. This is probably not what is important here because however this article winds up measuring airlines' size, we will still have an article that's a massive list with too many tables. It's all just too hard to use.
I truly agree with Pdbailey. There needs to be sufficient prose to go along with the tables. In other words, the tables should compliment a written presentation. E dog95 04:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone who writes in the article have any intention or desire to make this into an article? Pdbailey 03:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Would this version be a step in the right direction, although it still lacks proper referencing for now?--Huaiwei 10:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


I can't see much that would hang together and make it encyclopedic with the current set of editors and interests--it's just a bunch of tables. What's so bad about moving it to wikisource? Pdbailey 01:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested move.

During the AFD discussion, User:Crazysuit suggested moving this page to either List of airlines by size or List of largest airlines. I concur with the latter suggestion, but wanted to be sure this has consensus with the editors here before making the move. I note the page originally existed at the latter location but was moved here later... can anybody explain why? JulesH 07:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The current page title contravenes WP:MOS. Fully support moving it back to List of largest airlines with regional or other forks as necessary. Wl219 17:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
This article was renamed when it was revamped into this version[6], as per similar articles for World's busiest airport and World's busiest port. A single user suddenly came forward and began to wikiwar over this new format without really giving a good reason for it, except that "major changes should be discussed prior to changes", despite the fact that there has been prior discussion on this right here in this talkpage. The article has now settled in his preferred version due to my refusal to continue a revert war, despite countless discussions where he has garnered little support. He then proceeded to create a forked article at List of largest airlines by category, which is essentially similar to this article but with his favourite picture at the top of the article (which I sense could be his real reason for revert warring). I do not feel this article should be moved back until the above dispute is settled.--Huaiwei 13:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

I've put a request to move the page to "List of largest airlines by category". Any comments? Cool Bluetalk to me 16:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Sparrowman980 has been involved in past heated disputes in this article, and has since created a forked article at List of largest airlines by category with his preferred version. I am not too sure if the above request makes much sense in this regard, when that article is probably good for deletion for being a forked article to advance a POV.--Huaiwei 13:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That article has been changed to redirect to this one. -Fnlayson 03:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes

The recent changes to this article amount to vandalism in my opinion. Twice now the consensus has been overwhelmingly to keep this article. Yet the recent changes seem to be an attempt to delete it by the back door in defiance of that consensus. Making major changes to an article that has been voted "keep" in a given format twice in rapid succession without any discussion is not acceptable, especially when it appears that the editor is trying to impose his will against the consensus. I have reverted to the version before the changes were made. If an editor wants to make major changes, they should be discussed here first. Harry was a white dog with black spots 07:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry. I was worried about this article, it started flying apart at the seams. I'm glad someone put it back together, in a useful format. —Fudoreaper 05:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all i have been the one wanting to keep it in its original form and o only did it fearing it would be deleted the article! Sparrowman980 07:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you care to explain this version which you tried to implement[7], especially when it seems to be similar yet inferior version to the one [8] you kept reverting over?--Huaiwei 15:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Groups

Do we include groups or not? We need to be consistent. Some are and some aren't. Harry was a white dog with black spots 18:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No, groups should not be included. If an airline has its own AOC, it is a separate airline and should not be included to inflate figures for any 'group'. My two kopeks. --Russavia 18:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
One should not simplistically assume group figures are there just to "inflate" figures for the fun of it. Group figures may actually be a more technically accurate reflection of the company's operational performance, especially where all airlines are fully owned within that group by a dominant carrier. It is not uncommon for airlines to move regional or local operations to feeder airlines, and by doing this, it will appear that the main airline is doing less well than it actually is. We end up giving this impression that smaller, compact airlines are larger relatively.--Huaiwei 01:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latest reverts

After a cleanup and expansion of this article to include all 9 tables taken direct from the IATA's website[9], User:Sparrowman980 now insists on adding Qantas figures into the table despite its non existence in the primary sources. And he did so by using figures for Qantas Group of 36 million, when Qantas itself flies about 24 million (in 2006)[10]. All other entries by IATA shows figures only for the airline, not the group, and his persistent inclusion of a single airline's group figure renders the entire table inaccurate. This he persists in doing twice[11][12] despite my notice[13]. It should also be mentioned that User:Sparrowman980 has dropped some interesting comments in my talkpage concurrently.--Huaiwei 01:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

In light of User:Sparrowman980's persistent revert warring and refusal to discuss this in a sensible and amicable manner, I have made a 3RR nomination against him at[14]. My only regret is my failure to do this sooner, instead of engaging in this tit-for-tat with him in the first place.--Huaiwei 06:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I have restored the page to reflect data in stated source. Any further protests, please indicate them here instead of simply reverting.--Huaiwei 01:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I note that a User:Sparrowman98 has almost immediately reinserted Qantas figures, but this time by inserting its total passenger figures (year ended 30 June) in the international figures table[15]. Needless to say, this factual inaccuracy was promptly removed.--Huaiwei 02:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No one listens too you, maybe that should tell you something. Sparrowman98 03:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering you were blocked in the previous instance, that probably tells you something also. You have been warned before against your persistently disruptive behaviour by multiple users. Take time to reflect on that.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated User:Sparrowman98 a second time in a space of 2 weeks for revert-warring[16], this time for reverting edits by User:MilborneOne and myself.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

This RFC is over the inclusion of Qantas Group's operational figures in a primary table devoid of airline groups. The tables in question were sourced from IATA's official site, and represents operational figures for airlines minus subsidiaries as at 31 December 2006[17]. User:Sparrowman980 has been adding figures for Qantas which are for the entire Qantas Group of subsidiaries (Qantas + Qantaslink+ Jetstar+ Jetconnect), and which are dated 30 June 2007[18]. This would be statistically inaccurate. I have voiced this concern in the article talkpage in the preceeding section, but he has failed to respond. In the meantime, we have been involved in a revert war, and he has dropped some comments in my talkpage which appear to be veering towards WP:OWN. I request for outsider intervention to resolve this dispute.--Huaiwei 05:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • It's my understanding all planes involved are owned by Qantas. Some are registered to the different subsidiaries though. What's the policy or guideline on how it should be handled? -Fnlayson 01:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your enquiry. The figures in question here are over the number of passengers flown. The source from which the tables under dispute were taken from consistently displays figures flown by the said airline only, and not by its subsidiaries, even if the subsidiaries may be fully-owned. The jury is still out on how airline groups should be handled, but until then, it is prudent to maintain data consistency and to adhere to the referenced source until alternative sources are found.--Huaiwei 02:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
      • OK, sort of a consensus rule then. Why are subsidiary planes not listed in the top XX flown tables but seem to be in the fleet size table at the bottom? Just seems inconsistent unless I'm missing something. -Fnlayson 02:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
        • This is because IATA published figures for the first three sections in this article. Aircraft fleets by table is a (embarrassing?) piece of work resulting originally from users simply copying over figures from airline wikipedia articles. Efforts to replace these figures with sourced content was undertaken, but because there is as yet no independent published list of airline fleet sizes which may be sourced for comparison purposes, we end up with people citing figures for airline groups or individual airlines as and when this information is published in the airline's websites. Worse, some folks seem intent on showing group figures only even if broken down figures are available, for reasons which may be against the spirit of wikipedia.--Huaiwei 02:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Looks like some text or general notes are needed in the article to clarify that. Just my opinion... -Fnlayson 02:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
            • I agree, and will consider ways to make this explicit. Early versions of these tables are actually quite blatant on the source of the tables, but were toned down in favour of the standard referencing formats. I suppose some text should still be reintroduced to avoid confusing or misleading readers.--Huaiwei 03:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
              • I added a general note to those to tables stating IATA source. If you or someone else has a better idea go for it. -Fnlayson 04:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Have a closer look at iata.org: WATS2006 gives us the figures from 2005. Please compare it with the numbers published by the airlines, e.g Lufthansa --Charliebravo1 07:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistent presentation

Anybody explain why:

  • Scheduled passengers carried lists Continental Airlines as unplaced at the bottom of the table ?
  • Scheduled International passengers has two extra unplaced airlines at the bottom ?
  • Scheduled passenger-kilometres flow has Singapore Airlines unplaced at the bottom of the table ?
  • All the other tables have 10 (but see above above could be 11 or 12 sometimes) but the fleet has 21 ?

I could be WP:BOLD and delete stuff but I may have missed something but it does looks wrong to the reader as if somebody hasd forgotten to delete lines. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Sparrowman980 all the tables are now 10 except fleet size, anybody now why that should be different? MilborneOne (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Those entries were left hanging there because they were in the top ten spot for year 2005. This is for comparison purposes year-on-year, since the columns are actually for displaying two years' worth of data. I have restored the entries accordingly.--Huaiwei (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Huaiwei, I understand it just wasnt clear from the table. I have split the fleet list into passengers and cargo and limited the list to 10. The cargo airlines include a lot of franchise operators and in FedEx case a large number of single-engined C208s which appear to distort the fleet table. MilborneOne (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I wanted to add a "-" in their ranking cells, but that causes the entire row to become invisible, so I left it as that for now. Meanwhile, I agree to the overhaul in the fleet section. Besides splitting them between cargo and passenger, we may even consider having tables for narrow-body and wide-body fleets only...or even jet vs turboprops! Too much detail, perhaps, so it can go into List of world's largest airlines by fleet?--Huaiwei (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a bit tiresome! I have returned fleets back to 10 to keep all the tables consistent. This keep being reverted to a list of 20 or 21. Can reverters please explain why this table should be different to all the others in the article. Thank You. MilborneOne (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We need to add more airlines to largest airlines by fleet size

I think it is more specific if you just restore the other ten airlines that have been deleted because it is more specific that way. User:Gorillazfeelgoodinc (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, not sure what "more specific" means have you a better english word that relates to what you are trying to say. Not sure why an extra ten is OK why not hundred! The list was limited to ten because all the other lists on this page are limited to ten. Dont get me wrong if their is a good reason why the fleet list, or any other list on the page should be longer then we just need a rational explanation and consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
More specific in what sense? Please do be more specific in your request here, because that is simply not a good enough reason to buck the trend here. If one wants an extensive list, List of world's largest airlines by fleet already serves that purpose.--Huaiwei (talk) 07:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Some modifications have to be done. Air France-KLM-Transavia never have 400 aircrafts together. This is what Air France owns alone. Air France-KLM fleet is composed of 569 aircrafts, and Transavia 19. Which places them number 2 with 588 Aircrafts in their fleet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.176.186.110 (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ryanair most international passengers carried - is correct

There has been some points of contention on this article as to whether the figures published by IATA for Ryanair carriage of international passengers is correct or not. I have spoken on the phone to the statistics section of IATA in Montreal about another matter, and remembered this issue and asked them about it. Firstly, the lady I spoke to did mention that they have had many enquiries in regards to this, but yes, Ryanair carrying the most international passengers is a correct statistic, even when taking into account the small number of domestic services it operates. I was told that IATA and ICAO have an agreement that IATA will utilise forms and definitions as set down by ICAO. The statistics are reported, from my understanding, and will attempt to get this in writing from IATA, to IATA from the airlines via way of the airlines' reporting to their State ICAO member, which are then compiled and utilised by organisations such as IATA in their own reporting and statistics. The form which is used for such reporting is Form A - (01/00) - AIR TRANSPORT REPORTING FORM - TRAFFIC — COMMERCIAL AIR CARRIERS. The blank form is available for download at [19] (PDF file - 62kb), or if that link is not working at ECONOMIC ANALYSES AND DATABASES (EAD) SECTION - STATISTICS PROGRAMME - STATISTICAL AIR TRANSP0RT REPORTING FORMS - Air Transport Bureau division of the International Civil Aviation Organization. On Page 3 of the Reporting Instructions section under a heading titled "DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED" it states the following:

Flight stage. A flight stage is the operation of an aircraft from take-off to its next landing. A flight stage is classified as either international or domestic based on the following definitions:

International. A flight stage with one or both terminals in the territory of a State, other than the State in which the air carrier has its principal place of business.
Domestic. A flight stage not classifiable as international. Domestic flight stages include all flight stages flown between points within the domestic boundaries of a State by an air carrier whose principal place of business is in that State. Flight stages between a State and territories belonging to it, as well as any flight stages between two such territories, should be classified as domestic. This applies even though a stage may cross international waters or over the territory of another State.
NOTES:
1. In the case of multinational air carriers owned by partner States, traffic within each partner State should be reported separately as domestic and all other traffic as international.
2. “Foreign” cabotage traffic (i.e. traffic carried between city-pairs in a State other than the one where the reporting carrier has its principal place of business) should be reported as international traffic. (MY BOLDING)
3. A technical stop should not result in any flight stage being classified differently than would have been the case had the technical stop not been made.

As per the 2nd note, domestic flights of Ryanair in the UK, France, Italy, etc, etc are classed by ICAO and IATA as international flights because they are between city-pairs in a State other than the one where Ryanair has its principal place of business, which for Ryanair is Ireland. Therefore, the figure of 40,532,000 for Ryanair is correct given that they are reporting inline with requirements of the ICAO, the Irish authorities (of which Ireland is a member state of the ICAO) and IATA.

It is not our job as Wikipedians to engage in original research, which means we can't very analyse figures or anything else, we have to state what reliable sources write. Either IATA and ICAO are reliable or they are not. I believe they are, as do others due to their publications being widely used by news media, journalists, authors, etc, so I am placing Ryanair figures back, and removing the notes inline with how these figures are reported. And I will obtain written confirmation of this from IATA, however that should not really be required as we need to report what they report.

On a sidenote, a little original research of my own, inline with the above, the only route which would be considered domestic as per reporting guidelines would be the Dublin-Cork route. Are figures for that route published or known? Or when did the route begin, was it operational in '06? --Россавиа Диалог 20:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the note based on the above. The number is still not entirely accurate, but I doubt the number of domestic Irish flights would knock FR out of top spot. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)