Wikipedia

Talk:Aegean Airlines

Latest comment: 7 months ago by Dimsar01 in topic Long range A321neos
Learn more about this page

Untitled

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Destinations should be moved to a separate page, right? ParanoidEyes 12:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not necessarily. Since the list isn't all that long, I think its ok to leave it where it is. -- Hawaiian717 00:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Aegean Airways website

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why is the website always down at the weekend? Does anyone monitor it ? This is the time when many people will be trying to book flights online.Hercules3 (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Aegean Airways website has nothing to do with Wikipedia suggest you email wwwcontact@aegeanair.com. MilborneOne (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Aegan's Learjet

edit

I believe the Learjet 60 should be included in the fleet table, since it is mentioned on Aegean's magazine. Many other airline articles include the Learjet 60 in the fleet table. For example:

In other languages:

Thakaran 14:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


In my opinion, the Learjet 60 must not be listed as part of Aegean's fleet. Yes the aircraft is mentioned in the magazine but it is done on in a following section, not as part of the passenger fleet. In addition, the Learjet 60 is not mentioned in the official website of the airline. Also, it is never mentioned in the official Annual Reports of the airline. The only inventory counted are the A320 family and the OA aircraft.

Also, it is best practice in the industry not to count these aircraft as part of their passenger fleet. Please see fleets of other major airlines.

However, to satisfy the need to mention the Learjet 50, this is the reason why I include the sentence that Aegean owns a Learjet 60 and it is used for VIP travel and executive services. And also using the Blue Magazine reference. But the Learjet cannot and must not be part of Aegean Airlines fleet.

Konmarks 16:32, 02 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konmarks (talk • contribs)



There you go it wasn't that hard to state your opinion ;) I appreciate it and since there is no point in editwarring, I suggest we leave it the way you propsed and see if maybe someone in the future have a different saying Thakaran 14:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Aegean Airlines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Racist incident

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The racist incident in January 2016 made international headlines. Please don't just delete it. --Babelfisch (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)Reply


Political Incident

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The so called political incident that keeps reappearing on the page is a daily occurrence all over the world for the vast majority of airlines. Aegean's page seems to be the only one that seems to make a mention of such an incident in its own section. Is there a reason for it? Does it have to do with the airline? Is some particular contributor involved directly with this so called incident? — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.Koum (talk • contribs) 07:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2016

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

171.7.82.233 (talk) 08:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Aegean Airlines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aegean Airlines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Aegean's awards

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Recently I added some of the company's awards in the article, then Jetstreamer reverted my edit invoking WP:NOTRAVEL. You can find the discussion that followed here.

Taking a step back, I'm personally ok with just adding the awards that seem more "notable" (to me at least...) like the ones by Skytrax, ERA and IATA, and maybe TripAdvisor as well having in mind its popularity. So I propose adding a paragraph like:

"Aegean Airlines has won multiple awards and has been voted as Europe’s Best Regional Airline in 2009 and for eight consecutive years (2011-2018) at the Skytrax World Airline Awards. In 2009 and 2018 the airline won the "Best Cabin Crew in Southern Europe" award and it has also been voted as the "Best Regional Airline" company for 2018 according to the Travellers’ Choice Awards of TripAdvisor. The European Regions Airline Association (ERA) has awarded Aegean the "Airline of the Year" 2004-05 and 2008-09 Gold Award, the Silver Award of the year 2005-06 and 2006-07 and the Bronze Award of the year 2000-01. The Airline has also received the Fast Travel Gold Award from the International Air Transport Association (IATA)."

Are there any arguments as to why any of the above awards shouldn't be mentioned in this article? Esslet (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, previous consensus at project level has agreed not to include skytrax in particular in these article due to not being a neutral award, its likely the other either fall into the same category or are just not encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@MilborneOne: Hello, it would be great if you could please provide a link as well so I can verify that. I thought I searched your WikiProject and found no consensus regarding Skytrax and its awards. Jetstreamer did not mention that as well and we had a long and informative(for me at least) discussion. And what does "its likely the other either fall into the same category or are just not encyclopedic" mean exactly? Aren't awards by the International Air Transport Association and the European Regions Airline Association neutral or encyclopedic? Esslet (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Esslet I believe this was the discussion discussion although it had been raised before. Basically the airlines pay to join Skytrax, so not really neutral or a level playing field. I have not looked at the thers you mentioned yet but they may fall into the same criteria (they are both membership organisations) or are just not noteworthy. We can raise it at project again if you think this needs to be clarified. MilborneOne (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the info, didn't really know that airlines pay to join Skytrax! Then again I'm no expert in the field, not even an enthusiast. I read earlier today the discussion you posted, but it seems that some users disagreed there with the removal of Skytrax ratings.
Ravendrop, for example, wrote that "it should be considered on a case by case basis." Bobrayner wrote that "interesting Skytrax ratings should be mentioned in articles" and Aviones de pasajeros wrote that "Mentioning awards where airline/airport is best in a separate Awards section is OK". And there's also that older discussion where AA, among some others, was also opposed to removing Skytrax links, mentioning that "Skytrax is a notable organisation providing independent research of Airlines and Airports". The question is, are there any sources discrediting Skytrax ratings? I hope you understand my point here...
The same question goes for the other two, I.A.T.A. and E.R.A. (and maybe TripAdvisor ratings as well). I'd be glad if you could please check them and let me know what your thoughts are and why.
And, yeah, I guess it would be great if you could raise it at the project again and hopefully come to a decision about Skytrax and the others, because this certainly needs to be clarified. Moreover, until then, it seems only fair to me that the paragraph should remain on this article, given that Skytrax ratings are already included in several other articles (gave two examples here) -or should be removed from all articles. Otherwise, we are discriminating between companies. Let me know what you think about that last one as well please, thanks for your time! Esslet (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
My opinion is that subjective awards like "best airline" are probably not encyclopedic. I would also be suspect of any award issued by an organization that requires membership, like Skytrax or IATA. I am ok with objective awards like "fastest growing", though I don't think that they belong in the lead of the article. I also disagree with the idea that because other articles have potentially unencyclopedic content (i.e. the Skytrax awards), we should leave similar content in this article. Until we can gain a consensus, I would recommend leaving the contentious content. Sario528 (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
A lot can change in a year and much more can change in 6 years :) I haven't been involved in the project for a number of years so if there have been other discussions and consensus, take what I say with the relevance or irrelevance it may carry. Skytrax is a much more notable organisation today than it was 6 years ago when I supported the argument that it was notable and a bit surprised that Esslet has quoted me from all those years back :) Today, many major news outlets across the world cite Skytrax awards in broadcast and print media including the BBC, which sees fit to mention Skytrax as The granddaddy of airline rating sites in it's travel column and again here where it mentions that Skytrax conducts a "survey of 13 million passengers". Also, CNN, Economic Times of India, the UK's Financial Times, Forbes, The Guardian and many more. It may be so that airlines have to be a member of the organisation to be considered for awards (though the Academy Awards is even more limiting but still cited for the people who receive them) but if other news organisations see it fit to cite Skytrax and 13 million passengers are voting for the awards then I would suggest we can also cite where appropriate in articles and revisit the discussion and update to the current world view of Skytrax. → AA (talk) — 01:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps it needs to be revisited at project level to see if consensus has changed. MilborneOne (talk) 08:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply


It's been about 3 months now, so are there any developments? Any new discussions on your wikiproject? AA above seems to have provided some well-documented, independent support for the Skytrax awards, so are there any specific objections to that material? Esslet (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

No one has initiated a discussion and there's no restriction on who can do that. You could start a thread in Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation with your proposal and get the ball rolling. → AA (talk) — 15:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Source for Aegean's ATR 72-200

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I can't seem to find a source that specifies those planes were ATR 72-200. The official website called them just "ATR 72" at the time (https://web.archive.org/web/20030620101025/http://www.aegeanair.com/aegeangr/company/airlines.html) which technically could mean ATR 72-100, -200, or -500. Is there a chance that source is fine? cc Jetstreamer —Dimsar01 Talk ⌚→ 20:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

As you point out, there are no distinctions between the different versions so the use of the reference is at least ambiguous.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yeah... even press releases from the Aegean-Cronus merger don't specify the type. Wondering if images of the aircrafts with the Aegean livery are usable, since the type (ATR 72-200) is painted on the top of the tail. I don't think there is anything else. —Dimsar01 Talk ⌚→ 10:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm afraid images are not considered reliable sources.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Is Aegean really the "flag carrier of Greece"?

edit
Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Although a few sources (but not the company's own website) refer to Aegean as the flag carrier of Greece, I'm not sure this is a valid claim. Aegean is privately owned to its entirety, and to the best of my knowledge enjoys no special privileges. It was also never state owned, although it has acquired Olympic Air (prev. Olympic Airlines, which was definitely the greek flag carrier). Christos.porios (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ref #12 clearly says so. We do not interpret what sources say per WP:VNT.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Long range A321neos

edit
Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

@Jetstreamer Aegean announced that 4 of the 17 on-order A321neos will offer long range capabilities with extra tanks + flights up to 7.5 hours. They don't specifically mention the type (A321LR or A321XLR). Is it safe to change the type as A321LR given its range is closer to the 7.5 hours or just keep it as I added it with split 13+4 A321neo orders until it's clarified? —Dimsar01 Talk ⌚→ 12:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think so if the airline did not mention the type explicitly. Is it possible to find another source?--Jetstreamer Talk 23:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Nope for now. All sources that explicitly say A321LR look like they just assume it based on that max flight hour comparison with the XLR which is 11 hours. Well I guess they'll clarify at that media event they mentioned, which should be done by June. —Dimsar01 Talk ⌚→ 15:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aegean_Airlines&oldid=1219571103"