Talk:Air Transat

Suggest removal and/or relocation of logos

Perhaps a current logo would be informative and relevant to the article, but including two old logos at the bottom may not be. I suggest if one is included at all, it be added closer to the top of the article- as that would be most relevant and at a more appropriate location. 68.79.97.96 (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Error

Hi, this paragraph seems wrong: "Air Transat has 2,667 employees[4] The aircraft safely landed at Lajes Air Base, on the island of Terceira. The aircraft was evacuated in 90 seconds. All 306 passengers on board survived. Afterwards, an investigation revealed that the cause of the accident was a fuel leak in the number two engine which was caused by an incorrect part installed in the hydraulics system by Air Transat maintenance staff. The part did not maintain adequate clearance between the hydraulic lines and the fuel line, allowing vibration in the hydraulic lines to degrade the fuel line and cause the leak." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.40.37 (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It was a bit of code that was not correctly restored following some vandalism recently. Now corrected. MilborneOne (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Codeshare

Someone had reverted an edit saying certain flights are operated by Thomas Cook Airlines. I updated the Services section: it is more accurate to say that it's a codeshare service, which is the exact wording the airline uses on its website.

For example: I recently booked Air Transat flight 806 from Gatwick to Montreal. My e-ticket said "operated by Thomas Cook Airlines under designator TCX6K". Sure enough, it was a Thomas Cook Airlines Boeing 757 I boarded at Gatwick, but the check-in counter, the aircraft door and most of the announcements said Canadian Affair, the name of a tour operator owned by Transat. AirOdyssey (Talk) 17:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed edit about Thomas Cook as I believe that the airline is being confused with the tour operator. Thomas Cook operate for Canadian Affair but that is nothing to do with the airline Air Transat. This is an article about the airline not the tour operator. MilborneOne (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

From the Canadian Affair website Canadian Affair maintains strategic alliances with Thomas Cook Airlines which are exclusive to the company’s Canadian routes. again nothing to do with the airline Air Transat. MilborneOne (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe so, but what do you make of flight TS806 "operated by Thomas Cook Airlines"? That's a pretty clear example of codeshare to me. Even the official website says "codeshare", so I really don't understand why you reverted that sourced edit. AirOdyssey (Talk) 03:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

OK understood, I will remove it if you add mention of Thomas Cook and Skyservice with a reliable reference. MilborneOne (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. I reinstated the two sources I had originally quoted, plus one of many airtransat.ca pages that display a prominent message at the bottom titled: "IMPORTANT NOTICE - FLIGHTS OPERATED UNDER CODE SHARING WITH AIR TRANSAT". AirOdyssey (Talk) 17:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Another error

Founded in 1987, but they have a '86 livery? 90.209.11.24 (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

a330 neo

Hello again, it's Eric. Is there any news on the aircraft for air transat? There is a new line of a330 called a330neo that is set for 2017. Sinse several airlines in Canada will be upgrading, it would make sense if Transat did the same. Go to the official airbus a330 family page and there are details on the a330neo. Thanks

Eric — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.195.166.103 (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Fleet size

There are three different sources for the fleet and no way to say which is correct. So the best thing is to put in all three and the reader can decide. No way though should the airlines or Transport Canada's numbers be removed in place of planespotters. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

IPs are persistently removing them. I've reinstated the latest version including all three sources.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Not surprised they are being removed, no way that planespotters is a reliable site for wikipedia purposes, the current table is a mess and is not how we normally do it. MilborneOne (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I see the table format interesting in that it shows different figures from several sources. We're having troubles in finding references to support fleet tables at all airline articles, specially for those carriers not providing these figures.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

MilborneOne. You did notice that Planespotters is not being removed. It is the airline and Transport Canada (TC) numbers that are being removed. The table works better where the airline and TC give different numbers of aircraft, see Air North#Fleet for example. The other thing is that the airline numbers are from a primary source. The sentence before the table should probably read "Air Transat states they have a winter fleet of 36 aircraft and a summer fleet of 26. Transport Canada list a total of 33 aircraft registered while Planespotters lists 40." The whole fleet number can get confusing. Buffalo Airways has 55 registered, with Buffalo School of Aviation and they own another that is still registered in the US but not Canada. Their website lists a Canso but TC says that is registered to someone else. Aklak Air has only one aircraft registered, but that is with a cancelled certificate, and they get all their aircraft from Kenn Borek. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

We should not use planspotters at all if anything looking like a non fanboy source is available, I dont see what the problem with TC is surely it lists all the aircraft registered to the airline, all you need is another source if the airline has leased aircraft. Clearly not needed in the Air North article either and leased in aircraft can be explained in the notes. Certainly dont see a need for a table of sources as far as I know we dont use it anywhere else and I am not convinced we need to. MilborneOne (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I think I'm misunderstanding you a bit. British Airways#Current fleet, Monarch Airlines#Fleet, American Airlines fleet and Hawaiian Airlines#Fleet all have tables. BA has the primary source and the UK equivalent of TC and the numbers look to match. Monarch has the UK equivalent of TC. Hawaiian has a deadlink source from 2008, a source that does not seem to give a total fleet and planespotters. American uses planespotters and airfleets.net and the numbers differ by one. I just tried a search of the http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/ for American Airlines. I got 1,503 hits. Most for American Airlines Inc but some for American Airlines, American Airlines - CLT and American Airlines - SFO. On top of that it also lists all the numbers that have been reserved but have no aircraft. It also list the historical aircraft, a C54 that was exported to France in 1949 and reregistered in the US in 2004 to another company. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't have an issue with the table it was the multiple column sourcing of aircraft numbers that was non-standard. MilborneOne (talk) 12:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. That was the bit I was missing. How about having the numbers in the same column in the format 12/13 when the two sources are different? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Dont have a problem with that cbw. MilborneOne (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Neither do I. The idea of using multiple sources sounds good to me as well.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I've opened up a section at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#planespotters and airfleets.net. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Air Transat/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

The first incident discussed suffers from flaws of neutrality, omission of facts, and from poor reference material (at best characterized as secondary source material, but probably tertiary or worse) chosen for interpretation of this incident. Official Transport Canada, Canada's Transportation Safety Board, and the Government of Portugal's Aviation Accidents Prevention and Investigation Department files and case information should be referenced, not an aviation enthusiast website article. The incident and accident section also seems to display a different level of writing skill and style in my opinion, suffering from poor grammar and vocabulary. This writer will attempt to correct these issues, especially with respect to the famous incident of the fuel exhaustion emergency landing in the Azores. J.A.Ireland, BA (IHPST) (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC) After checking the original author's source for footnote 3, (a popular aviation news portal website, and thus, at best, a secondary source) it can be readily seen that the author does not even give a balanced or complete summary of the the article to which (s)he refers. This is quite misleading, in addition to a questionable choice of a non-primary source for reporting on this incident. I have sourced many reports and documents from Canadian government agencies (and must say that Canada's aviation accident and incident reporting and publication system is woefully lacking in comparison to, for example, the U.S. NTSB website) as well as Portugal's Government documents upon which I will re-write this section after reading them over. This investigation has also lead me to realize that the Canadian government and its aviation authorities take what to me seems an odd and arbitrary approach to deciding where they have jurisdiction as primary investigators. For instance, one Canadian source document refers to the fact that the Air Transat rudder separation incident's occurrence over "international" waters mandated that they (the Canadian investigators) take primary responsibility for the investigation (presumably because, (and this makes sense I believe with respect to ICAO convention) the aircraft was registered in Canada), in spite of the fact that the aircraft departed from another nation, and landed in another nation. Yet by the same rationale, the fuel exhaustion incident should have been primarily investigated by the Canadian authorities, yet it was not. Many of the same conditions applied (incident over international waters, Canadian registered aircraft), yet this investigation was left primarily in the hands of Portugal's authorities. As a licenced Canadian pilot who flew small aircraft until a couple of years ago, I believe this deserves some comment, and perhaps even in the venue of this particular article, as it is a key example of a Canadian aviation authority seemingly voluntarily abrogating (or at least reneging upon) its responsibilities to the people it primarily represents. J.A.Ireland, BA (IHPST) (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 17:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 06:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Is a "Variants" column really necessary in the "Fleet" section?

So, recently, an edit has been made by user CambridgeBayWeather. This edit is a new column in the "Fleet" table: "Variants". It now looks like this:

Aircraft | Variants | In service | Orders | Passengers | Notes

They defended this edit, stating that he thinks it makes it easier for "the common reader" to navigate through. They also stated:

"Wikipedia is supposed to be for a general audience not only for people who know all about any particular aircraft. So having things like Airbus A310-300 which sends you to Airbus A310#Variants does not help the general reader. So providing both links allow the reader to go read either the article on the Airbus A310 or if they already know about it they can go to the more specific section."

I'd argue that the new "Variants" column is pointless because if we take the previously-mentioned argument of ""Airbus A310-300" may be too confusing for the common reader, so two columns make it easier to navigate through", here's my solution.

The "Variants" column can be deleted, and instead, the aircraft's name can be written as:

"Airbus A310-300" (for example)

That way, the variant is still written there, but the link takes you to the general page. From there, the reader can head to the section of the article about the -300 variant by using the "Contents" box.

What do y'all think? Do you consider the new "Variants" column necessary and helpful?

EnjoyingMyProblems (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

No it adds no value and not what we normally do - it should be removed the first column should deal with the aircraft type described. MilborneOne (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I find that being referred to as a "certain user" is insulting. I have a name and you can use it. Or did you not want me to notice that this was here? The variants column isn't new. It has been around (not in this article) since at least 2010 and is in multiple articles. MilborneOne I see that once again the links which should go to the aircraft page now link to the variants section. Great for the more knowledgable reader but not the general reader and should be left to a more specialist Wiki. That is a type of WP:EASTEREGG link and should be avoided. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry CBW you are right about the internal links, they dont really help and I missed that. MilborneOne (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I referred to you as a "certain user", because I wasn't sure whether or not you wanted to be included in this, but if you consider "certain user" to be insulting, I changed it to your name. EnjoyingMyProblems (talk) 09:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

EnjoyingMyProblems on a slightly different note. What is wrong with the image in the box? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Basically, I think that the infobox should be reserved for images of the company's logo and most articles about airlines only feature an image of the airline's logo in the infobox. I still keep the image in the article, because I see nothing wrong with the image itself, I just think it should be placed outside the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnjoyingMyProblems (talk • contribs) 15:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Number of aircraft

As per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which says in part, "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." In this case Transport Canada is a reliable source for the fleet. A fleet includes all the aircraft that are under control of the owner. It does not mean just the ones that are being flown. We don't get to pick and choose which sources we include when they are different. We use all and let the reader choose. However, we can state that Air Transt does not list those particular aircraft. This is no different than many other airline articles. Angryskies. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)