Talk:Korean Air/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Six Continents" club

The article includes the following passage:

Korean Air, along with British Airways, Delta Air Lines, Emirates, Etihad Airways, Qantas, Qatar Airways, Singapore Airlines, South African Airways and United Airlines, is one of few airlines that fly to all six inhabited continents.

I think this is a misleading statement. This list creates an impression that these airlines somehow offer the most extensive network of destinations, and/or the widest global reach, and/or the most mature offering of long haul flights, which is utter rubbish for a range of reasons:

• It seems misleading to create this listing when many airlines offer extensive services to "all continents" through alliances and code-sharing arrangements.
• Airlines with a hub in the southern Asia-Pacific area or in the Middle East can "make the list" much more easily: an airline based in Sydney or Singapore can easily make revenue 747 or A340 flights across the Pacific to, say, Los Angeles and Rio de Janeiro, while Johannesburg is in reach of even an A330; all you need to complete the list is a single transcontinental route, say, to London or Amsterdam. Conversely, from the point of view of a European airline even with a very large-scale long haul operation, the incentive to start a transcontinental route to Sydney or Auckland is much lower.
• The Middle-Easterners have it even easier; from Abu Dhabi you can reach all six continents with an A330-300 without breaking ETOPS!
• By the way, even the definitions of the "continents" vary (see that page); Air France appear to be excluded despite their Paris-Nouméa flight, which most of us would full well count as serving "Australia (continent)".
• An economic consideration, namely that operations between (say) Europe and South America are much more profitable if the aircraft is based, crewed, and maintained out of South America rather than Europe, due to the lower cost of labour, etc., so that European airlines would be more likely to take equity in an alliance partner down there and let them operate a codeshare flight, rather than invest in operations the other way around.

For all of these reasons, I strongly recommend deleting the incriminated passage from all applicable pages.

Since the issue touches several pages, I won't go ahead until I get a bit of feedback. I will post brief discussion items on the other pages with a link back here, to keep the conversation in one (albeit arbitrary!) place. HAdG (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

If your "incriminated passage" (whatever that is) is on more than one article it may be better to raise this at the airline project WT:AIRLINES. MilborneOne (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a technical comment. A330-300 isn't too good to fly from Abu-Dhabi or Johannesburg to Sydney. Some modern research show that repeated ocean ditchings may increase wear on the aircraft. I may be wrong, though. And it has to be a VERY long ETOPS rating - there are hardly any airports between Mauritius and Perth. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Nut rage scandal

Should Heather Cho's misconduct have more space in the article? She was arrested together with another senior employee and it sure is heading for a major investigation. It's been almost a month but the interest to the subject is beyond just a one day sensation. Should there be more about it? Should the existing section about chaebol and nepotism be changed into "Criticism" section and expanded? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The section about Chaebol should really be removed the subject it to do with the family and how they act, it is not really a criticism of the airline itself and in the big scheme of things doesnt need a section of its own. MilborneOne (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Not a criticism of the airline? Do me a favor, type "Korean Air chaebol" into a search engine and read a few articles. KAL is in the epicenter of this scandal and it's cleared said that the route of the problem is chaebol phylosophy. The words "corporate culture" are all over the place. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 13:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I didnt say it didnt need to be mentioned but it does not need a section of its own. Also it is the family who are the "epcienter" and subject to criticism rather than the airline. MilborneOne (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Any more than the current content will cause the article to be too biased towards recent events, an example of our systemic bias from recentism. Recentism is inherent in how Wikipedia works, but that's more of a reason why we should aim to counteract it, rather than falling for it. We're talking about an event that has been only here for a month in the company's 46 (or 69)-year history. If this problem drags on to affect the company for years to come, let it have a dedicated section and more significant coverage. As of now, we just can't tell if it merits it. 朝彦 | Asahiko (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Korean Air. 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/20070929071031/http://www.kal-asd.com/ to http://www.kal-asd.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929071031/http://www.kal-asd.com/ to http://www.kal-asd.com/

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) 06:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)