Talk:Hobart Airport

Images

I've taken these pictures which somebody might be able to incorporate into the article. Image:Hobart Airport 2.JPG Image:Hobart Airport 4.JPG

-- Adz|talk 13:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

good work, this site has needed a pic of this quality for some time. I added one of the pics you submitted. Wiki ian 11:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I have taken some pictures of aircraft at Hobart. I have uploaded one of a QF73H at the terminal. Image:QF73H HBA.JPG

R773 10:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone provide a picture of the airport from Tower Hill to provide a good view of the terminals and runway? Wiki ian 08:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have uploaded two pictures I took at the airport just over a year ago if anyone wants to use them. Image:DJ and JQ HBA.JPG and Image:QF763 HBA.JPG. R773 (talk) 03:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HBT DFO.png

Image:HBT DFO.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

The top text mentioned that Singapore Airways used 777 equipment into HBA, theres no chance it was a 777 it would not take off fully laden. It was a 757 charter aircraft. 220.253.104.162 22:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

On the exception of the Airbus A380 any passenger plane in the world currently operating can land and take-off at Hobart airport, this is confirmed on their website. Also The Boeing 767 (which is comparable to the Boeing 777 in size) has landed and taken off fully laden many times from Hobart airport. Also if you look up Singapore Airlines you'll see they have no Boeing 757 planes in service. Wiki ian 05:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The 757 aircraft was chatered for the flight and was not a SIA fleet jet. The 767 is not comparable to a 777 as the later is far heavier - the MTOW for a 767 is 142,800kgs and a 777 is 247,100kgs. A 777-200 could land at HBA but they have never tried to - any other varienat could not as their take-off run at MTOW is too far, the reference to that on the page is a blatant misstatement - please report times, airlines, and dates of 777 take-offs and landings at HBA and I will beleive you. An aircraft of that size would be newsworthy in Hobart but I have never heard of it occuring, either has Australian Aviation magazine . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.238.12 (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A Singapore Airlines 777-200 and indeed a Qantas 747-400 have both landed at Hobart and there are pictures of them at the airport at http://hiapl.com.au/gallery.php. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.201.218 (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well said, if you check the Airport's Homepage and look at their masterplans, under the runway section you'll see both 747 and 777 aircraft have landed and taken off from the airport under weight restrictions. Wiki ian 02:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Passenger stats

Does anyone have the current passenger figures as the 1.6 million was a couple of years ago. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie talk)} 00:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

B-class review for WikiProject Aviation

As requested by User:Wiki ian, I performed a review of the article for the Class B criteria, specifically for WikiProject Aviation. Before I get into the nitty-gritty details, let me say that I can tell you've been busy and that you've read the relevant guidelines. Most of the problems I found are related to link rot on web sites used as references.

• b1 Referencing & citations - no/needs attention (after corrections, became yes)
  • Some of the references (including all of the ones from the Mercury) have become dead links: "Hobart Airport $100m sale near", "PDF file 2004 Master Plan", "Hobart Airport sale reaps $350m" (Mercury), "$8m motel plan for Hobart Airport site", "PDF file Development Plan", "Ministerial Conditions of Approval", "Huge DFO trading by next year", "Airport Set For Boom Travel". If possible a new URL should be found for each of them. If there is no updated URL available any more for any given one, don't remove the reference but just mark it as a "dead link" in the reference.
  • The reference "Hobart Airport sale reaps $350m" (IAG) does not match the title of the page it links to, but does support the text where it is cited. It looks like a cut & paste which was not completely updated.
  • other references checked OK
• b2 Coverage & accuracy - yes
  • follows guidelines in WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT
• b3 Structure - yes
  • follows guidelines in WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT
• b4 Grammar & style - no/needs attention (after corrections, became yes)
  • The "Hotel" section reads like an advertisement with too many adjectives. Things like "spacious", "contemporary", and too many details about the rooms can be removed. Also, the fact that there is a service station is too much detail for the encyclopedic-level view.
• b5 Supporting materials - yes
  • good use of pictures
• accessibility - yes, but minor issues could use attention:
  • There is inconsistent use of unit conversions in the article. Generally km are converted to miles. But hectares and square meters are not converted English units.
  • The Skytraders destination Casey Station should have a parenthesized "(Antarctica)" since assuming it's in Australia would be incorrect. And it should become a wiki link.
• comments
  • The "Landing patterns and approach" section probably should be removed. Airport articles generally do not have information about air traffic control procedures because it is something passengers never see. And pilots know where to look it up without Wikipedia. With that deleted, the content of the "Runway" subsection would become the "Operations" section without a subheading.
  • The reference "Melbourne Centre" does not need the note that it's "in en-au". This entire article is expected to be in Australian English since it's about a place in Australia, as per WP:ENGVAR. But this point is moot since the previous suggestion will remove that text and reference.
  • The "Access" section should focus more on the types of ground transportation available rather than driving directions from the CBD. Local residents probably already know where the airport is. So those unfamiliar would be coming from the airport initially - and rental car companies probably would have already offered them a map if they don't have a GPS.

Overall this is an excellent effort. I don't think it will take long to fix. Once the issues are fixed, we can re-visit the B-class review. Ikluft (talk) 07:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

all of the above has been fixed. If this is now suitable for B class status, please leave feedback on how I can get it to GA class, if not please leave feedback on how I can get it to B Class. Cheers Wiki ian 10:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I looked through the text and references. I agree that the Class B criteria have been met. I'll edit the assessment to reflect it. Ikluft (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hobart International Airport/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Overall the article looks good, covering all major aspects, but the lead and history section could be a bit longer. Also, there are a number of grammatical errors in the article, particularly related to capitalization. Some comments:

• The lead and the article name disagree on whether 'International' is part of the official name.
• What is meant by "Primary Gateway to Tasmania."? Is it the slogan. Anyway, instead of such a subjective comment, instead state that the airport is the busiest in Tasmania or something.
• There are two hyphens used as punctuations; these should instead be endashes (see WP:DASH).
• I find the lead unbalanced; it overfocuses on many smaller details, but leaves out key information. Take a look at Trondheim Airport, Værnes for a proper lead. Information which should be included would be mentioning the single runway and its lenght, key airlines and key destinations, owner/operator and slightly more history, perhaps moving the history to its own paragraph. For instance the detail level on international flights and Skytraders Antarctica operations seems to have overdue weight, as is the peninsula/curfew information.
• The sentence Hobart Airport currently ranks as the second fastest growing Airport in Australia, and also sits as the ninth busiest in Australia in relation to passenger numbers. presents information in the wrong order. Start with the most important (total rank) and then present the growth. If not, it reads "nationalistic" (or is it cityistic?) Plus, ninth-busiest has a hyphen.
• The images that are hosted on en.wikipedia should be moved to the Commons. This tool makes it easy.
• Personally I would have used File:HobartAirportTerminal.JPG in the infobox, but that is purely a matter of taste. Anyhow, the image should probably be expanded to 300px.
• File:Checkin-hbtairport.jpg should use the upright syntax.
• Create {{commonscat}} to the image cat on the Commons.
• Personally I like to see the history section late in the article, since it is easier to understand the history after reading the other stuff, and most people are actually not that interested in the history. But again, this is a matter of taste and nothing I will hold against the article in this review.
• The history section is very short.
• There should be something on the establishment and building the airport, such as why was Cambridge Airport superseeded. Was it too close to the city center? Privately owned?
• The operational history is lacking. When were various routes introduced? When did different airlines arrive? When were there international services?
• The sentence At this time, it was known, not as Hobart International Airport, but as Lanherne Airport, after the name of the property on which it was built. This name, however, has now fallen into disuse. could be shortened down a lot, such as The airport was originally known as Lanherne Airport, after the property on which it was built.
• 'Lanherne Airport' should not be in italics, neither should company names (or anything in this article save for things in the references section). See WP:Italics.
• Could you mention the actual runway lengths, not just the aircraft they allowed to run (keep that, just add the lengths).
• "By 1957" and "In 1964" need a comma after them.
• First you call it the 'Federal Government' and then the 'Commonwealth government'. A bit confusing, but perhaps okay. But stick to the all-caps, since it is a proper noun, and don't wikilink the second time.
• I would not call transferring ownership from the federal to state governments "privatization".
• Hyphen in front of "owned".
• Comma after "in 2005" and "During December 2007".
• Again, Tasmanian government and State government should here be capitalized and the second not wikilinked.
• If "Federal Security" is a government agency, wikilink it. If not, it is not a proper noun, and it should be de-capitalized.
• There are numberous capitalization errors; terms such as 'general aviation', 'runway', 'master plan' and 'taxiway' are always in lower caps.
• What do you mean by "modern facility"? If it is only a single story and has no aerobridges, it is not what most people would regard "modern". Subjective terms like these are best left out.
• Some of the terminal information could perhaps go in the history section.
• Comma before and semicolon after "when Air New Zealand suspended operations,"
• Drop "currently" in the freight section.
• The information on Cambridge Aerodrome doesn't make sense. Is it still running or not?
• The runway conforms to CASA standards. is rather redundant, as it is presumed that airports conform to federal standards. The sentence is also too short and CASA should be spelled out (which again would make the sentence long enough).
• "recently" is very vague and shouldn't be used.
• "understandably" is subjective, and should be removed. "desirable" is also subjective; if the airport owner has announced they are planning or want such an extension, it is better to state it as such.
• Comma after "surrounded by roads".
• Semicolon before and comma after "however". Comma also after the next "however".
• Delink "State Government" and decapitalize 'Airport'.
• 'Other facilities' should be lowercase.
• 'In December 2005' should have a comma after it; "prominent" is a subjective term. 'Hotel' should be lower case. Don't use slashes in prose; use 'and' or 'or'.
• Don't link dates.
• 'Big Box Development' is not capitalized, as is 'big box', 'airport', 'commonwealth land',
• Don't measure things in football fields, since it is an inherently subjective term. Is it an Australian or association football field? does it include the surrounding are, or just to the line etc.
• Comma in 2000; should be 2,000.
• CBD needs to be spelled out, since it is a fairly uncommon term outside Australia.
• Delink Federal Government, put 'including rejections' in commas
• Place references after punctuation.
• Comma after 'However'.
• The 'airlines and destinations' section needs a large extension of the prose. The article should describe the nature of the various airlines and their route in prose and then present the list. The prose should contain sufficient references to support the list. Previous airlines (which is not capitalized) should be covered in detail in the history section.
• There could be more information in the traffic section, such as the number of passengers and a description of the tables. 'Domestic Routes' is not capitalized. I find measuring in thousands in the table very difficult to read. Why are there statistics for November 2009? I would have though annual statistics were good enough; monthly statistics are here three months out of date and will force constant updates.
• Take a look at WP:AIRCRASH. I would say that neither meet the criteria and should be removed.
• I feel 'ground transport' is less ambiguous than access, but I will not hold it against the article. 'car' is not capitalized, as is not 'taxi rank', 'limousine',
• Remove the see also sections. The first is included in a navbox, the second is a bit to remove from the subject at hand.
• The airport should probably be in the 'Buildings and structures in Hobart' category.
• Since the external link is in the infobox, it does not need to be in the 'external links'. It should anyway have been formatted as 'Official website'.
• A lot of the references are incorrectly formatted. Some are bare, others lack dates. It is better to use ABC News Online than a domain address.
• Ref 20 needs a date and author (not just publisher). Newspapers should be in italics.
• Ref 7 should be the year published, not the year it covers.
• There is some white space between the sections; please remove this.

I am placing the article on hold. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Arsenikk, thankyou for your quick and efficient review of this article. I have a few questions for you in regard to this review.

• File:Checkin-hbtairport.jpg should use the upright syntax.... please explain
  • Stick |upright into the code for the image. This will make the image taller but narrower, which is better for portrait-aligned images.
• The images that are hosted on en.wikipedia should be moved to the Commons. This tool makes it easy.... I get a litle confused about licences, are all the non-commens pictures eligble for commens?
  • The tool should sort this out automatically. Most images placed on en.wikipedia are here because the uploader didn't understand/couldn't bother to upload them to the Commons. It is very practical for other-language wikis. If there is a particular image that the bot doesn't handle, stick a note here, and I'll look at it.
• The operational history is lacking. When were various routes introduced? When did different airlines arrive? When were there international services? - Can you give me an example article on which i can learn from?
  • I have for instance written Trondheim Airport, Værnes and Oslo Airport, Fornebu. I am not saying that the history section needs to be as long as those, but they should give a generally good idea of the type of content to include. For instance, the history of the current airport at Svalbard Airport, Longyear is not particularly long, nor is it at Ben Gurion International Airport (which I did not write). The latter is shorter than what I would have liked, though.
• Could you mention the actual runway lengths, not just the aircraft they allowed to run (keep that, just add the lengths).... The runway lengths are mentioned. Can you be more specific?
  • Sorry, I meant in the lead; what is mentioned in the prose is fine.
    • Okay, now that I think about it, it was the history section I was referring to. What needs to be added, is the length prior to 1964, after 1964 and after 1985.
• I would not call transferring ownership from the federal to state governments "privatization".... The federal government did in fact privatise the airport (and all aussie airports), ironically the tasmanian goverment purchased this particular airport. I have reworded that sentence, but would like further advise on this.
  • Okay, I understand. Normally transfer from federal to local level is called 'municipalization' (akin to 'nationalization'), but in this case I understand that the State Government bought it in an open bid and ran it as a commercial enterprise.
• What do you mean by "modern facility"? If it is only a single story and has no aerobridges, it is not what most people would regard "modern". Subjective terms like these are best left out.... I do not believe there are any pictures to demonstrate, but compared to what it used to look like and given that Hobart has a population of less than 200,000 it is a very good facilty. Please advise on how i can reword this.
  • 'Modern' is subjective, no matter how I turn it around. My "local" airport (Trondheim) covers a smaller population, but is significantly larger—the best thing to do (given that this is an encyclopedia) is to just state facts. In a way, most people expect an airport to be "fairly modern" unless otherwise stated. Otherwise, there are two images that show what the terminal looks like; "a picture says more than a thousand words" is a Norwegian proverb that works in your favor here.

Once again thankyou for your feedback. I'm not trying to hassle you with these questions but rather clarify what you have asked of me. Thakyou for your time. Wiki ian 10:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I moved the reply to the GAN page to keep all the feedback in one place. Most reviews involve a dialog; sometimes the reviewer is wrong or explains things difficultly, so questions are always allowed. Nice to see more people interested in airports; feel free to come with more questions or comments later in the review, if they should arise. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Three weeks have gone. Have you addressed all the issues? It is nice if you could state so here, so I know when to look over the article again. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm done, if you have anymore suggestions for improving this article, please tell me before passing/failing this article. I have been unlucky in finding any detailed information on the Airport's history, will this affect its chances at GA class?

Don't worry too much about the history; if there is nothing available then nothing more can be said. I've done a copyedit, however:

• There are three dead links, see [1].
• There are a few places lack of references. All claims not obvious (such as that Hobart is located in Australia or that an airport is a place where aircraft land, or that an airport needs a runway for fixed-winged aircraft) needs to be referenced.
• I don't quite see how monthly statistics help the reader understand the airports operations. The statistics are "always" lagging a few months behind, and require a lot of maintenance. The use of annual statistics, however, greatly adds to the article.

Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• The article hasn't been worked on since this round of comments. I'd make a decision on the article now. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 12:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

  Do you know where Wiki Ian has gone? So it's the last paragraph left remaining?—Aaroncrick (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment — Well, the prose seems alright; however, the refs are horrible and incorectly formatted. With three inlcuding a major one dead. —Aaroncrick (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll fail the article, then. A shame, it was pretty close, but there are still dead links and unreferenced claims. Hopefully when Ian's back, he can fix it up, and renominate it. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Hobart International Airport. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101119191956/http://airservicesaustralia.com/projectsservices/reports/movements/finlytd09_10.pdf to http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/projectsservices/reports/movements/finlytd09_10.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091013224032/http://www.hobartairport.com.au/images/Hobart%20International%20Airport%202009%20Preliminary%20Draft%20Master%20Plan.pdf to http://www.hobartairport.com.au/images/Hobart%20International%20Airport%202009%20Preliminary%20Draft%20Master%20Plan.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091005065633/http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/97/Files/Avline_13.pdf to http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/97/Files/Avline_13.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090706114113/http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/24/Files/Domestic%20Airline%20Activity%20Annual%20%20publication%20200708.pdf to http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/24/Files/Domestic%20Airline%20Activity%20Annual%20%20publication%20200708.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hobart International Airport. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708091113/http://www.brandtasmania.com/newsletter.php?ACT=story&issue=56&story=5 to http://www.brandtasmania.com/newsletter.php?ACT=story&issue=56&story=5

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) 21:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

1998 or 1988?

There are conflicting statements on this page. In the lede it says the airport was privatised in 1988, while the Privitisation section states it occurred in June 1998. Which one is it? 1.136.106.101 (talk) 00:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 27 August 2019

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: page moved per concensus below. (closed by non-admin page mover) PC78 (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

---

Hobart International Airport → Hobart Airport – WP:COMMONNAME, the airport does not have international in its title CHCBOY (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• @CHCBOY and Ahecht: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@CHCBOY: The bottom of the airport's webpage says "© 2018 Hobart International Airport", and the ABC article here calls it both Hobart International Airport and HIA. Did it change its name recently? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 01:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Let's not be selective, "© 2018 Hobart International Airport. Pty. Ltd. ABN" ...., which is the company/group that operates "Hobart Airport". The site itself has "Hobart Airport" branding everywhere. SMH uses Hobart Airport in a recent article and Airservices Australia uses "Hobart Airport". Bidgee (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Not that I know of as far as I remember it's been Without International in the title for a long time.CHCBOY (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support - a GNews search for "Hobart Airport" returns 261 results, whilst the same search for "Hobart International Airport" returns 173 results (remembering that Google's estimate of the number of results is usually ludicrously wrong and you have to page through to the last page of the results to see what the actual count was). The same search on GScholar returns 446 results for "Hobart airport", whilst "Hobart International Airport" returns 59 results. "Hobart Airport" is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME. The only other airport in Hobart is clearly disambig'ed as Cambridge Aerodrome so I can't see any problems with ambiguity. FOARP (talk) 07:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support per my comment above re-name. Bidgee (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I might refer this on as has been 9 days and no further comments and none against the proposal. Do we have a consensus?CHCBOY (talk) 02:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The closer must be uninvolved, so no-one who has proposed/voted on this can close it. FOARP (talk) 08:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.