Talk:Flybe (2022–2023)

Inaccuracies

Belfast City is officially a hub not a Focus city! https://www.routesonline.com/news/29/breaking-news/297749/belfast-city-to-be-second-flybe-base/ 94.1.82.140 (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

A potentially rumour article, written before the airline relaunched, that hasn’t been supported by anything the airline has said, is not a reliable source. Canterbury Tail talk 20:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Article title following demise

It seems to me that the move to Flybe (2022–2023) was unnecessary, and in any case premature. The most recent incarnation of Flybe is still the WP:PRIMARY topic when searching for Flybe, and I don't suppose anyone is suggesting creating a Flybe (disambiguation) page. Before I move it back, please weigh in with your thoughts, preferably based on WP policy. Rosbif73 (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it was a reasonable move, maybe a few weeks early yes, but ultimately the articles would have been renamed thus. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Given that an attempt was just made to move the Flybe redirect to the former incarnation, I think this needs more discussion. Firstly, that move would have broken a lot of links that should point to the latest Flybe. Secondly, the administrators say that a rescue deal is a real possibility [1]. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Definitely way too early to move Flybe to point to the original airline, if ever. I'm mostly OK with how things are at the moment but equally wouldn't object to moving current article back to Flybe. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• I think the move was premature, administration doesn't mean the end of the company. We're not a crystal ball and if no one else is saying it's totally dead without a possibility of resurrection then we shouldn't either. We don't get to make that call. I'd support a move back to it's original title. Canterbury Tail talk 12:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 6 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 06:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Flybe → Flybe (2022–2023) – While it was correct to have the operational airline as the primary topic, as like its predecessor, it has now also ceased, no longer the case. Arguably the airline that traded for 30 years, Flybe (1979–2020), is more notable rather than the one that lasted for less than one year, but that is debatable. Propose that this article be renamed Flybe (2022–2023) and Flybe become a disambiguation page.

There was a suggestion in the section immediately above that the airline could be resurrected, that won't he happening as the administrator would have kept the airline flying and not grounded all operations immediately. Nukerstt (talk) 03:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: We don't know yet whether or not the current incarnation of Flybe will be resurrected. The administrators have explicitly stated that they are preserving certain operational assets in the hopes of a deal. There were reports just this weekend that both Air France-KLM and Lufthansa group are interested in buying Flybe and keeping it going in order to lay their hands on its valuable slots at LHR and AMS. As a result, it is too soon for this discussion. Maybe in a month or two, once it becomes clear what is going to happen to the company. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, note that if the move is made, the target page should have an en-dash, not a hyphen, between the years, per MOS:RANGE. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Just tweaked that! 10mmsocket (talk) 07:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: For same reasons as @Rosbif73. Well put. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: As long as the airline holds an AOC (which Flybe currently does), it remains a viable airline which could resume operations. Lard Almighty (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: I agree that this is far too soon. Indeed the administration is not yet legally in place with the company still listed as an actively trading entity until details any sale are confirmed.

C F Spring (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose to soon. We're not a crystal ball and we also don't need to be up to the minute up to date. It's perfectly fine to leave this a while and see what happens. There's no issue being caused right now and it seems this is currently a solution looking for a problem. Canterbury Tail talk 13:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not an expert on the topic, but from a quick read of the two Flybe articles, my impression is that a WP:MERGE might be the best solution here. The ownership may have changed between the two periods, but there's still continuity in the brand. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I think there is precedent for two separate articles. Pan Am. People Express and Arizona Airways are three examples. The short name in these cases also redirects to the longer extant airline. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough! In that case, it makes sense to stick with the existing two-article setup. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Too soon, we don’t know if Flybee will be founded (again). Merging would probably do better than changing the name, or keeping it. Vriend1917 (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Given that the owners had over the past month Flybe’s directors had undertaken enormous efforts to shore up the business, including seeking new owners and/or investors, a relaunch is unlikely. As the RM at this stage appears not to have gained support, happy for it to be closed. It can be revisited when the airline is liquidated. Nukerstt (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Today it was reported that the administrators are seeking a new Operators Licence for Flybe so I would say that liquidation, at least initially, is unlikely. C F Spring (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

https://travelweekly.co.uk/news/air/caa-grants-temporary-operating-licence-to-flybe-administrators

"However, this does not mean Flybe will resume flying. The administrators have given the CAA assurances they will not undertake any aircraft operation, take bookings for flights or request payments for existing bookings." Lard Almighty (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed so. However surely if any such licence was granted Flybe would legally still be an operational airline company and thus should be treated as such at least during the licenced period. Just my "two cents." C F Spring (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for a "double reply" here however I note that that text was taken by the journalist from the CAA licencing page for the existing Flybe licences. Perhaps this would not apply in the case of a second/new licence. It is a point which we will have to keep following. C F Spring (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unconfirmed news

A piece of unconfirmed news has been included without providing a source. The original publisher reported it without mentioning who were its sources, and the media just massively blindly parroted it. The original source became discredited during Brexit. Trigenibinion (talk) 12:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

What makes you say the Daily Telegraph is discredited? It is listed as "generally reliable" on WP:RS/P. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

It is now generally regarded as a propaganda machine, not a serious broadsheet, except of course by Brexit supporters. Trigenibinion (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

If the reporting was about a contentious political subject, I could just about see your point. But here? Rosbif73 (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

There could be a financial or political motivation. I'm not saying it is a lie, but they provided no sources and a lot of media just amplified it (I have seen Bloomberg just republishing some things where CNN does not). Trigenibinion (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph is considered generally reliable, and the last discussion on the topic was in 2022. If you wish to take issue with it as a source then please go to WP:RS/N. With it's listing on WP:RS/P it's reliable for this article. Canterbury Tail talk 12:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with others that the Telegraph, despite being behind a paywall, is a reliable source, or at least as reliable as Murdoch's Times. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Which sets a low bar. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

But a slightly higher bar than the Mail, Express and Sun all of which have been deprecated as reliable sources. Perhaps you should take it up at WP:RSN? Personally I'd support any call for its removal - albeit on the basis of not liking paywalls rather than its journalist standards - but for now I would also support leaving the reference in place on this article. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Paywalls can often be overcome using 12ft ladder, including in this case: https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fbusiness%2F2023%2F02%2F04%2Flufthansa-air-france-klm-circle-collapsed-flybe%2F Lard Almighty (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

So, not providing references is unacceptable but quoting articles without sources is OK? Trigenibinion (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Read and understand Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact.

News sources do not themselves need to provide sources for what they write. Indeed, in some cases is a breach of journalistic ethics for reporters to reveal their sources. What matters is whether the source has a reputation for reliable fact-checking. This is determined from time to time at WP:RSN. At the moment, The Telegraph passes that bar. If and when it doesn't, anything sourced solely to the Telegraph would be removed. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I know journalists have to protect their sources, but it was reported that this article did not provide even a remote hint of where the information came from (paywall). Trigenibinion (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

It came from their business correspondent who will have talked to people involved. It doesn't matter anyway, as I said, unless we decide to deprecate the Telegraph completely. If not, it's taken to be reliable. Whoever posted it would have been able to read the source, either by subscription or using something like 12ft.io (as you are also free to do). Lard Almighty (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand the newspaper stated nothing about where it got the news from. I will not visit the Telegraph, either directly or indirectly. Whoever posted this bit did not need to read the original article, the claim was republished all over the internet. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

So there's no problem using it then. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the claim by the Telegraph was cited by other news sources because they think that the Telegraph is reputable. If it was in another less reputable publication then others would not report it. That's all we need concern ourselves with here. If you think that Wikpedia needs to change it's policy on the Telegraph then please start a discussion at WP:RSN 10mmsocket (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I did not see it cited by CNN, for example. I did see it republished by a leading source which sometimes makes basic mistakes. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

So what's the point you're trying to make by continuing to comment? Four of us @Rosbif73, @Lard Almighty, @Canterbury Tail and myself all agree, contrary to your belief that the Telegraph is (currrently) accepted to be a reliable source on Wikipedia. Two of us have gone on to say (with a supporting quote from WP:RS) that it's OK when news organisations don't reveal their sources. All of this adds up to the discussion as far the news citation used in this article goes being done with, i.e. it is acceptable. Again, third time of mentioning, if you want to argue things further w.r.t. The Telegraph and Wikipedia's assessment of it as a reliable source, then take it up at WP:RSN 10mmsocket (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The text was restored twice without providing a citation. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The existing citations already supported the text, there was no need for more. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

As for you saying "I did not see it cited by CNN, for example", you obviously didn't look as the first search result for cnn+flybe+klm+lufthansa returns this article, in which CNN states "In the meantime, Flybe's administrators look as if they might get a temporary operating license from the UK's Civil Aviation Authority. Lufthansa and Air France-KLM are said to be nosing around the company." 10mmsocket (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. It seemed strange that CNN would be more strict than Bloomberg. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Reported as rumors or speculation elsewhere. Trigenibinion (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 25 May 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

---

Flybe → Flybe (2022–2023) – A previous RM in February 2023 immediately after the airline was grounded was not successful on the basis of WP:TOOSOON. Over a year later, it is now clear that the airline is not going to resume operations. If there is a WP:PRIMARY, it would be the the airline that traded for 30 years, Flybe (1979-2020), not this one that traded for 9 months. Propose that this article be renamed Flybe (2022–2023) and Flybe become a disambiguation page. Gleeesqu (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support as per nom. This article probably shouldn't have been the primary topic in the first place. 162 etc. (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support the older one has 3,143 views compared with only 2,036 for this one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support - I didn't even know this airline existed. If anyone had said "Flybe" to me, I would have thought of the earlier airline, which I actually flew with a few times. Mjroots (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• I would support the move, but probably better still would be to merge the two incarnations of Flybe into a single article, with the short-lived reincarnation as a single section of the merged Flybe article. With hindsight, they should probably never have split, but of course we couldn't have known at the time that the new Flybe would fail so quickly. The earlier airline's article has by far the longer edit history to preserve, which probably implies merging into that article then moving the result to Flybe. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.