Talk:List of British Airways destinations

Untitled

If we have to have a separate British Airways destinations article (about which I am not convinced - it does not seem sensible to leave the original British Airways page to view this - the destinations were originally listed alphabetically on the BA page, which I think is much better) then at least it should state the date when these destinations are actually being served and where the information is taken from eg Summer 2005, BA timetable. Ardfern 3 July 2005 22:19 (UTC)

• This list of destinations is not date referenced. Are these destinations being served in 2005 or what? We need to know how current the list is or it is of no value. Is there anyone out there? Ardfern 20:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Of course the list is the "in service at this moment" list. Why on earth would we like -- on purpose -- to have a list which is not valid right now? Please make corrections, if you see errors. User:FlyerBoy Feb 14th, 2006

• I think that this page makes more sense, BA fly to so many destinations that a seperate page makes sense in my opinion 86.154.245.123 20:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Too many flags

Some of these flags add colour to what is otherwise a dull list. However, the inclusion of state (and city!) flags is making it too unwieldy. Can we restrict it to national flags only? The alternative would be to remove the flags altogether as I am not convinced they are essential for understanding the information presented. --John 20:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to implement this in the absence of any argument to the contrary. --John 02:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Making former destination list without Bmed

To screen out the Bmed destinations, I used this list: http://web.archive.org/web/20011230083826/http://www.britishairways.com/inside/wrldwide/partners/franchise/docs/bmed.shtml

• And this list: http://web.archive.org/web/20001214211500/www.britishairways.com/flights/factfile/network/docs/broute.shtml

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Shannon

As British Airways will begin scheduled service from LCY - JFK/EWR with a fuel stop at Shannon on west-bound flights I have added Shannon to destinations page but styled as Shannon - Shannon Airport fuel stop. Any other thoughts, changed you wish to make, etc. Please reply. Thanks. Zaps93 (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a destinations page, a "fuel / technical stop", scheduled or unscheduled, is not a destination as passengers cannot leave or join the service at this airport. For that reason I have removed Shannon from the page as it is misleading / unnecessary. Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Kyiv or Kiev?

Recently there have been changed regarding the name of Ukraine capital, Kiev. The change is 'supposingly' the correct spelling for Kyiv, but I visted earlier this year and it was still spelt Kiev of boarding pass, so my question is why Kyiv if it is recognised and spelt as Kiev? Zaps93 (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Kiev is the correct spelling in English, but others (mainly non-english speakers) disagree Talk:Kiev/naming. MilborneOne (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Kiev is latinisation of Russian way of calling the Ukrainian capital. When Ukraine gained its independence from the Soviet Union, it was proposed that in English Kyiv is used instead (being the latinisation of the Ukrainian pronunciation). It took some time, but several English speaking countries (e.g. Canada, USA and UK) officially adopted the new name. The old name is still in use though (like in your example). It becomes quite interesting when UEFA Champion League subtitles mention FC Dynamo Kyiv playing in Kiev. The situation is very similar to the Mumbai/Bombai case. You may imagine the politics surrounding this issue. Kyiv is the correct English spelling of the city. Andriy155 (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you may think of the situation, British Airways still spells the city name as "Kiev". Do you have a reference for this having been adopted as the "official" name by the UK? DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

http://ukinukraine.fco.gov.uk/en/ - As has been clearly demonstrated, the official spelling of the word is in fact Kyiv. Notice how airlines also migrate to Kyiv: Wizzair (the other airline you keep on changing the name of the city for) is using Kyiv: http://wizzair.com/?language=EN Andriy155 (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha, two can play at that game [1] shows that BA list it as Kiev, and as this is a BA destination page, so Kiev it is. Zaps93 (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

BGN database shows Kyiv as BGN standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andriy155 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, due to the fact Andriy155 is very confident of Kyiv as name instead of correct Kiev, a vote is best chance to chose. Vote for which ever one you believe it should be. Regards, Zaps93 (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont think we need a vote - while the wikipedia article is at Kiev this article should be the same. MilborneOne (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

So the name Kiev stays? Regards, Zaps93 (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

What is EW? --Andriy155 (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

EW is Edit War. Zaps93 (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, to avoid that, may I suggest Kyiv (formerly Kiev)? Please note, however, that Kyiv is the official spelling in UK, USA and Canada. --Andriy155 (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The name is Kiev as per the article - If you need to discuss the name then I suggest that Talk:Kiev/naming is the correct place, when a decision to change is made at that discussion then other articles should follow. This is not the correct place to debate. So not an edit war just the wrong place. MilborneOne (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Kiev please - that's the city's name in English. The comparison with Bombay/Mumbai is not correct, because that city's name was actually changed, unlike Kiev, where there's been no change in name. Apples to oranges really. A more apt compare would be something like Milan (which is Milano in Italian, Mailand in German, and so on) or Cairo (Le Caire, Kairo, etc) - these are different ways of calling the same city. Jasepl (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If Kiev were the English name for the Ukrainian capital, why does the UK government use Kyiv?--Andriy155 (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Be that as it may, amongst other things, one of the concepts Wikipedia works on is popularity/commonality. The British goverment can call it whatever it wants to be politically correct. In any event, governments are hardly standard-bearers in these matters - what a majority of English-speaking people use, is what matters. Also, as was also pointed out, it's not as if the English language has expunged the word 'Kiev' from its vocabulary. Oh, and why not call it 'Kyyiv'? Why just 'Kyiv'? Jasepl (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The 3rd general guideline of the naming conventions for geographic names currently states: "The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article." So, as long as the article on the city itself uses Kiev for its title, Kiev is the form that all other articles should use, including this one. — Besides, the name the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize (the core criterion of our naming conventions policy) is Kiev.

In any case, as MilborneOne mentions above, the naming issue itself should be discussed at Talk:Kiev/naming. If at some point discussion there leads to the article on the city being renamed to anything other than Kiev, that new name will be adopted in this article too, for consistency; but no before. - Best, Ev (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

JFYI: The situation has evolved since 2009, there are now newer rules: WP:KYIV -- although Jimmy Dore still cannot spell it in his shows. 😊 --Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

U.S. States

Hi everyone, I am just wondering why there are no states in the U.S.A. listed. They serve a large majority of cities all in a large variety of states and therefor I believe that states should be added to show their large network coverage in the U.S.A., like a major US airline. Your comments welcome. Regards, Zaps93 (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont think that US states are that important (to anybody outside of the US) I dont see any reason to list them for a non-US airline. Readers can follow the city links if they really want to know where destinations are. MilborneOne (talk) 11:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I get you. I was just abit confused by the large ammount and no state, but no you have cleared it, Thanks! Zaps93 (talk) 11:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Terminated Destinations

Terminated destinations on the old list were without airports name so I made an effort to search for the airports. There is a possibility that some of them are wrong if so, contributions supported by references Will be appreciated. --Meshoo.d (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent work. I'm currently tidying up some details.--Jetstreamer (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Why are the terminated destinations included in the table? The way Air Canada destinations or KLM destinations keeps them separate, looks clearer. Thankyoubaby (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Technically, two different articles appear within a single one in those two cases, which makes difficult to perform certain searches, such as the countries served for either served or terminated destinations. In that combined version you should check the list and the table simultaneously. It is actually easier to do this kind of things in the current layout of the article. Apart from that, why not mentioning Pakistan International Airlines destinations or El Al destinations? They combine current and terminated destinations in a single table format. Please also note that this format is also preferred for Dragonair destinations, which is a featured list.--Jetstreamer (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The list is unreadable, as is the BMI one; this one and BMI are the only two on Wikipedia posted in this retarted manner of current and terminated destinations. I don't give a toss to know a terminated destination ; if it's so bloody important put it on a secondary list like EVERY OTHER airline destination article... Seems someone has a fetish to keep it this way. 75.4.239.200 (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Just take a longer survey, many other airlines have their destination articles in the same format (see above). Apart from that, your judgment relies upon visual and aesthetics of the article, not over contents.--Jetstreamer (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Why do we even list terminated destinations? They just make the table harder to read, especially if you want to see only where they serve now. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 17:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and unlike the Dragonair article mentioned above, more than half of the "destinations" are terminated. Thankyoubaby (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Everyone's comment is welcome, but let me tell you that neither of the users opposing to the inclusion of terminated destinations have significantly contributed to the creation or maintenance of the article. Listing terminated destinations is not forbiddden, as per WP:AIRLINES. Furthermore, they engrose the history of any airline, as the “History” sub-section included in any airline article (if it is present at all) does not provide a complete list of all destinations served by the company throughout its history. Unsurprisingly, because the purpose of an airline destinations article is just that. You may also want to read an ongoing discussion regarding airline destinations.--Jetstreamer (talk) 02:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that the terminated destinations should be listed. I just believe that they should be listed separately. If we are listing them all together, why not list BA's current and retired fleet in one table? Thankyoubaby (talk) 05:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Future services to Seoul-Incheon

British Airways will begin flying to Incheon International Airport from December 2, 2012 but there has been a dispute whether or not is this service a resumption or new service. 2 news articles are calling it a resumption but the airline's official press release calls it a new route. I know that the airline served Seoul in the past but they flew to Gimpo International Airport and ended service a little before Incheon became operational. 123.117.36.87 (talk) 06:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

BA withdrew its services to/from Seoul in 1998, three years before the opening of Incheon Airport. There's no such a dispute therefore: GMP is a terminated destination, and ICN is a future route. Services to ICN are starting, not resuming.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

BA World Cargo destinations

Can these be added to the list with reference from BA World Cargo website? 182.178.63.22 (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Needs to be mentioned in the cargo destinations that they are operated by Global Supply Systems for BA. MilborneOne (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Done, yet a source is required to support the claim. I'm trying to fin one...--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Does this help it says the 747-800Fs are on wet-lease from GSS at http://www.baworldcargo.com/news/pr246.shtml MilborneOne (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's perfect! Will add it to the one I already included. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

See the article of airports

Please see the article of airports have hub of British Airways — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minhtuanvn 1995 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

What's your point?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Resumes Granada

http://airlineroute.net/2013/03/20/ba-lcygrx-jul13/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minhtuanvn 1995 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The source above is not reliable.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

New 2 Spain destinations

BA will fly to Las Palmas Gran Canaria and Granada http://airlineroute.net/2013/03/20/ba-lcygrx-jul13/ http://airlineroute.net/2013/05/03/ba-lhrlpa-w13/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.179.54.234 (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

As I said in the above thread, the sources provided are not reliable.-Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Begins Austin

http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayinthesky/2013/09/03/british-airways-dreamliner-austin-london-heahtrow/2757385/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.179.18.225 (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted the addition including the source above thrice, as it does not mention a firm date, i.e. yyyy-mm-dd, as required by these guidelines.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Archived references not used in the article

• "British Airways Puts Kuala Lumpur Back On The Route Map" (Press release). British Airways. 18 September 2014. Archived 26 September 2014 at WebCite
• "Hamad International Airport frontpage". Archived from the original on 24 May 2014.
• "British Airways to resume flights to Libya". Airwise. 24 January 2012. Archived from the original on 8 June 2014.
• "British Airways to resume flights to Tripoli". Yahoo! News. Associated Press. 23 January 2012. Archived from the original on 16 April 2014.
• "British Airways To Launch New Daily Direct Flights To Malta From March 2014" (Press release). British Airways. 4 October 2013. Archived from the original on 5 October 2013.
• "British Airways returning to Malta in March". Times of Malta. 4 October 2013. Archived from the original on 5 October 2013.
• "25 Days to Go for Launch of British Airways' New Nonstop from Austin to London". Yahoo Finance. 7 February 2014. Archived 14 February 2014 at the Wayback Machine
• Moores, Victoria (5 September 2013). "British Airways to use 787s on new Austin link". Air Transport World. Archived from the original on 5 September 2013.
• Hofmann, Kurt (10 September 2012). "Berlin Brandenburg plans Oct. 27, 2013 opening". Air Transport World. Archived from the original on 17 November 2012.
• Hofmann, Kurt (12 November 2012). "Reports: Berlin Brandenburg opening could be delayed again". Air Transport World. Archived from the original on 17 November 2012.
• "British Airways Adds 3 New European Routes from London Heathrow in S14". Airline Route. 16 October 2013. Archived from the original on 18 October 2013.
• "British Airways launches New Route to China" (Press release). British Airways. 19 December 2012. Archived from the original on 10 January 2013.

--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on British Airways destinations. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.centreforaviation.com/news/british-airways-transfers-nine-bmi-routes-to-british-airways-code-154605
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.britishairways.com/travel/bmi-policy-disclosure/public/en_gb
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.britishairways.com/travel/bmi-information-news-hub/public/en_gb
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayinthesky/2014/03/03/boeing-dreamliner-puts-austin-on-the-global-travel-map/5872881/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://buyingbusinesstravel.com/news/3023336-british-airways-start-bilbao-flights
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140926062554/http://www.nation.lk:80/edition/breaking-news/item/33565-british-airways-to-halt-colombo-flights-from-end-march.html to http://www.nation.lk/edition/breaking-news/item/33565-british-airways-to-halt-colombo-flights-from-end-march.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://allafrica.com/stories/201301180127.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.britishairways.com/travel/flights-to-dublin/public/en_gb
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140417052629/http://www.britishairways.com/travel/new-routes/public/en_gb to http://www.britishairways.com/travel/new-routes/public/en_gb
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.air-journal.fr/2012-11-08-british-airways-deux-routes-vers-les-iles-canaries-560793.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://airlineroute.net/2015/08/06/ba-sjo-may16/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://press.ba.com/?p=2269
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.centreforaviation.com/blogs/aviation-blog/british-airways-resumes-seoul-service-with-more-asian-destinations-to-come-as-ba-integrates-bmi-73014
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businesstraveller.com/news/ba-returns-to-seoul
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://atwonline.com/airports-routes/airline-routes-8
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.baworldcargo.com/schedule/longhaul_w2011.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.air-journal.fr/2012-12-10-british-airways-atterrit-a-zagreb-rotterdam-562509.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.air-journal.fr/2013-04-15-british-airways-est-de-retour-au-sri-lanka-571714.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://buyingbusinesstravel.com/news/0719986-british-airways-end-puerto-rico-route
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.air-journal.fr/2012-07-19-british-airways-deux-petites-nouveautes-pour-lhiver-552808.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oneworld.com/news-information/oneworldnews/-/asset_publisher/QtTQ7EuCzxhd/content/celebrate-gulf-s-newest-hub-with-discount-on-flights/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1998/1998%20-%200583.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/olympics-privatisation-again-in-doubt-as-new-athens-hub-opens-128254/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://airlineroute.net/2015/07/24/ba-ebbala-oct15cxld/

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) 19:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Terminated Destinations

Hi all, I just wanted to propose that the terminated destinations on this article either be removed, or put into a separate section with a valid reference to support its inclusion. What are your views? st170e^talk 18:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Your proposal is against the project guidelines. Furthermore, most of the terminated destinations are supported by a source. I don't know what you mean by "valid". Sources in Wikipedia are either reliable or unreliable.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I believe they should go into a separate section. I don't really see the need to have all terminated destinations mixed in with current destinations. st170e^talk 17:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced changes

@Spyder212: This [2] set of two edits was unsourced. Please do not accept edits like this one. The article has been PC-protected to prevent the addition of such information.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out! I'll be more cautious in the future. Spyder212 (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you please give a couple of examples each for a good edit, properly sourced, and a bad edit (unsourced, that should not be accepted), so we could give these examples on a user's talk page when we reject an edit? Thank you in advance! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Including Distance and Journey Time

Distance is particularly useful as it provides context for understanding how the airline's network has evolved and allows for insights that aren't readily visible - for instance, until inclusion of this information, I wasn't aware that the shortest flights are NOT domestic flights. Journey Time is also useful in understanding how the airline manages congestion at larger airports, and add extra contingency. This obviously impacts on the profitability of routes - which provides additional context to understanding the network.

After adding the information, it was initially deleted, and claimed it was against a certain policy - but that policy there are no rules against this information. It was again deleted and claimed that this information is not "normally" included - but since when have we been strictly limited to what has gone before.

There are many airlines listed on wikipedia. Ideally the page for each should have a consistent look and feel - British Airways should be treated similiarly to Air France or Lufthansa for example. Have a look at the page for Wikiproject Airlines, and see what people think there. If others agree that things like distance info should apply to all airline pages, then you will be in a better position Pmbma (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Whilst "ideally" this may be the case, we have to allow Wikipedia to evolve. If information is appropriate, then it should be added to one airline, and gradually added to others. Wikipedia would never have become what it is today without allowing one page in a family to evolve User:Andrew.smithh 17:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I do not agree. This is not a travel guide per WP:NOTRAVEL, aside from what other articles look like.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Distance and Journey Time are not "travel guide" information - they are useful data to understand the airline's operations User:Andrew.Smithh 17:00, 217 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you are right about that, but if you include such information it won't be difficult for you to support what you claim about the airline's operations. Just putting that information in new columns as you did fails WP:VERIFY as well.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

What specific part of WP:VERIFY does it "fail". I sourced the information from British Airway's own magazine User:Andrew.smithh 22:08, 28 November 2019

It doesnt actually matter that it is sourced it is related to being encyclopedic and relevant to this article. As you dont appear to be getting much support here you may be better if you believe it is an improvement to take this to project level as there is no reason why British Airways sould be treated any different than other three or four thousand airline articles. MilborneOne (talk) 09:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I guess that means that WP:VERIFY isn't therefore a problem. As I said before, whilst "ideally" it would be good to have every page in a family change at the same time, Wikipedia didn't get to where it is today by frustrating all evolution / change - children have to be allowed to develop! User:Andrew.smithh 12:12, 1 December 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew.smithh (talk • contribs)

I was just looking for you to find a wider audience as it is clear so far that you dont have a consensus to add it on this page. MilborneOne (talk) 12:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Kai Tak

It was said in a recent edit summary that These sources do not support the services were regular. If parliamentary records aren't sufficient what would be needed? Perhaps the actual copies of something like this: [3][4], [5][6]? 219.76.24.216 (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ctrlwiki, Jetstreamer, MattSucci, and Nick Levine: Thanks. (For information, Kai Tak was closed in early July 1998, replaced by Chek Lap Kok.) 219.76.24.197 (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the inclusion of timetable images as sources would do it.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. 219.76.24.193 (talk) 07:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Done. 219.76.24.197 (talk) 08:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Kimpo

BA already flew to Seoul before the opening of Inchon Airport in 2001. That airport was Kimpo, which has been added to the list. 219.76.24.197 (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Haneda

The BOAC flew to Haneda until its merger in 1971 with BEA and other airlines, whereas Narita wasn't opened until 1978. Do we need any references to "prove" that British Airways had regular flights to Haneda in the interim years? The same question for Singapore's Paya Lebar and Shanghai's Hung-ch'iao (though not too sure if the latter was already served by the BOAC before it became BA). 219.76.24.194 (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

We need sources to prove anything that can be challenged by anyone.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I see. That gonna take quite some time. 219.76.24.214 (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

In the meantime why can't there be a streamlined procedure for the inclusion of former airports (either closed, or international role largely assumed by newer ones)? For the cases of Haneda, Kai Tak, Kimpo and Paya Lebar the whole thing is kind of straight forward. The respective cities have already been served by BA before Narita, Chek Lap Kok, Inchon and Changi were opened. 219.76.24.195 (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Me or anyone else can revert unsourced additions per WP:V.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Btw is there anyone who'd be interested to add a column for when service began for each destination (and for the terminated ones when they were terminated)? 219.76.24.215 (talk) 09:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Or perhaps at least for the part in brackets? 219.76.24.207 (talk) 07:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Page issues

Lead section:

1) The lead section is uncited and it is therefore not clear how these list inclusion criteria were arrived at. See WP:LISTCRITERIA.

2) The lead section of this page states: "Following is a list of destinations the airline flies to, as of October 2020; terminated destinations are also listed". Why is the list of destinations on this date notable? Why are terminated destinations relevant? Many of the terminated destinations appear to have been terminated in the distant past, so why are they relevant to a listing as of October 2020?

Specific entries:

1) The listing of Tirana, is supported only by a direct link to the BA website. How does this support the notability of this article under WP:CORP? Same question for all other destinations cited only to BA's Website. Same comment to all destinations cited to the BA website.

2) The listing of Hassi Messaoud's Oued Irara–Krim Belkacem Airport as a "terminated" destination is supported by links to an archived page in French on a BA website about the cancellation of services to Hassi Messaoud. Nowhere does it state in this that services were ever operated to Hassi Messaoud, only that flights to it were cancelled - something that can happen without any flights ever taking place. Similarly the news story also cited to support this does not mention explicitly that any services were ever operated, only that they were suspended - and BA's service is only mentioned in passing in it, so this is not SIGCOV. Furthermore, the publication-date of both of these pages is more than a decade before October 2020, so neither supports the "terminated" status for this destination as of that date. Same question to all destinations supported in this manner.

3) The listing of services to Luanda's Quatro de Fevereiro Airport as a "terminated" destination are supported by a 404 link to routesonline.com. Assuming good faith in the person who added this, based on the URL the title of the article was "British Airways ends Angola service in June 2018" and it was added with this edit on 24 May 2018. Since this was about something that hadn't happened yet, how does this statement match WP:CRYSTALBALL? Additionally, is routesonline.com a reliable source? It appears to be industry press of the kind that would fail WP:ORGIND, especially as it lacks professional journalists, organises forums and media coverage for the airline industry, and has an airlines relations team according to its website At most this website is possibly useful to establish facts but not to establish notability. Same question to all destinations cited to Routesonline.com.

4) Yerevan's Zvartnots International Airport is listed as "terminated" based on a 404 link to the 1999 World Airline Directory catalogue that was hosted on the flightglobal.com website. Assuming good faith in the editor who added this, my understanding is that this is a directory of all the world's airlines and thus cannot sustain notability for this article as it is insufficiently discriminating. Additionally its listings are brief, one-paragraph entries that do not constitute significant coverage. based on archived versions of other editions of this catalogue, it did not appear to explicitly list terminated destinations (though possibly 1999 was different) so this appears to be WP:OR (i.e., the assumption is that the destination must be terminated if BA are described as previously operating it but no longer list it as a destination on their website, but possibly this is not the case and BA still operates that flight). Finally, it is industry press and doesn't meet WP:ORGIND. Same comment for all other listings cited to this catalogue regardless of year.

5) Aruba's inclusion here is supported by this short article on aeroroutes.com that appears to come form the OneWorld alliance of which BA is a member, dated 10 August 2022. This explicitly describes this as a route to be introduced in Summer 2023. This route had not opened or even been announced in October 2020 so it is not "as of October 2020", and this points to routes being included based on WP:CRYSTALBALL reportage up to a year before they are due to happen (and may indeed not happen). Obviously aeroroutes.com is (at best) industry press and this reportage is not independent of BA.

6) Innsbruck in Austria is listed as a "seasonal" destination and this is cited to a ticket-booking page on the BA website. It is not clear to the average reader what "seasonal" means in this context. It is not clear how the BA website supports the description as "seasonal", the page states "From December 2023 we'll also fly to Innsbruck from London Gatwick during the winter months" (my emphasis), which implies that they don't only fly to this destination then. Additionally, this appears to be more WP:CRYSTALBALL citation. Considering the issues just in the "A" country section I stopped at this point.

General:

1) It is not clear how this page fulfils the requirements of WP:NOT (which bars exhaustive listings of company services) and WP:CORP (which applies to companies but also to their services). It is not clear how this article is a valid WP:SPLITLIST from the main BA article considering that any list split out has to be independently notable under the relevant notability standard (in this case WP:CORP, see WP:AVOIDSPLIT). None of the sources cited appear to be independent, reliable sources giving significant coverage to a listing of BA's destinations.

2) Whilst I have not clicked on every link, ALL of the currently-operating services that I checked appear to be sourced ultimately to British Airways, either directly via BA's website/press-releases/publications, or indirectly via quotation in media articles. Similarly, ultimately ALL of the terminated destinations rely on BA's website, or other BA publications, to say that BA was not operating these flights as of October 2020. Even if there's RS sourcing for the service having been cancelled/suspended in, say, 2002, the only way you can say it's still terminated in 2020 is to go to their website and check if the flight is being operated (which is also WP:OR BTW). When you get right down to it, BA is the source of all of the information presented here. FOARP (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

This is an article on which I keep an eye on. I will reply point-by-point in several instances. A general response is that, as with every other article in Wikipedia, you are free to fix everything you feel is wrong, either on your own or by seeking consensus here at the talk page. My first comment is that I do not see any conflict with much of the destinations marked as terminated, let alone with WP:OR (BTW, I take the Wikipedia policies very seriously). In any case, I think I do not need to justify my edits but here I go: There are sources in which it is mentioned that they were served in the past and if you go to the airline's webpage and you find no flights to that destination then the services were discontinued. To finish this very first comment, the article is PC-protected because of a request of mine, as I found a lot of activity not following the WP:V policy. With all due respect, are you and me going to discuss the content of each and every article of airlines destinations at the corresponding talk? You are in a position of delete everything related with these articles and I am on the opposite side. I can discuss, of course, but sooner or later I will get exhausted and you will too.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Jetstreamer. My main reason for making this comment is I have no idea to fix the issues I've identified and was rather hoping that, given a decent period of time, someone could come up with something. I believe it's only fair to give people a chance. The level of work needed to review an article like this is far too much for me to consider doing it for more than a few, even if the problems identified can be generalised across to others.
The reason why I believe that going to the airline website and, finding no listing for that destination, concluding that this means that it is terminated as of the date you checked it, is WP:OR, is this is ultimately making a conclusion not stated anywhere: you can't use the silence of a source to prove something. It would at least not be OR to say cancelled as of the date it is reported in a source, rather than of the date you checked BA's website and didn't see anything.

Frankly the bigger problem is this being almost entirely (entirely?) sourced, in as much as it is reliably sourced, to BA. FOARP (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Requests for page protection/Decrease (Request unprotection)

@Jetstreamer:

Hello All!

What do you think about unprotection of the page?

According to WP:ADMINGUIDE/P, (see also WP:SILVERLOCK and WP:ROUGHSEMI) semi-protection can be used in cases of heavy vandalism by anonymous or new users. Are we currently experiencing heavy vandalism? I analyzed history and found the level of vandalism moderate, approximately the same as generally in Wikipedia, those regular edits are already monitored very well by watchers of the recent changes.

Thank you! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I've just restored the article to the last version without flags; please accept my apologies for undoing two of your recent edits in doing so. I'm therefore not sure about unprotecting.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

You could have simply remove the flags from the latest revision, because there were intermediary revisions where people spent time editing. However, how can it be related to unprotecting? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 06:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jetstreamer I can run a Perl script to remove flags from latest revision before you reverted it. I still feel bad about so many intermediate edits in the meantime got reverted. We can ask third option about those intermediate revision if you wish. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 08:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

You're right about other's edits. I've self reverted. Please proceed with the removal of the flags with a script as you mentioned above. Regarding the unprotection, let's just do it and see what happens.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you request unprotection and I will remove flags in the meanwhile? Should the troubles reoccur, we will ask again. In most cases, we can talk directly to editor (in their talk page and here in discussion page) to instill the general rules of this page. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Samsara: We contact you as the protecting admin. The article is PC and semi-protected, yet no blatant vandalism has been detected in the recent past, so the silver gold can be removed for the time being. We can always ask for protection again should vandalism increases in the future. Thank you.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I removed the flags. Please review. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 12:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I used the following Perl script. I quickly written it. The task might have been solved differently, with tools such as sed, but that way is most convenient for me. To use, save the contents of the article (source) to a text file, and use it as stdin of the script that will write contents without flags to stdout. See the script as a comment block in the source ("<!--") in this comment.

Maxim Masiutin (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Regarding the unprotect request, I will ask for another admin as, according to their talk page, Samsara seem to have left Wikipedia.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

{{admin-help}} ::::::To whom this may concern: regarding my comment immediately above, can you please remove the semi-protection to the article? Thanks in advance.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC) :@Jetstreamer you can request unprotection at WP:RFPP. Thanks, Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (he|she|they) 08:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Zippybonzo: Will do that. Thanks!--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Possible deletion

Hi All, Just a heads up It is possible that this article will get deleted as I have noticed others getting deleted recently that also belong to major airlines. Unfortunately they are not allowed on Wikipedia anymore CHCBOY (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Deletion review ended up as no consensus so we need to do a new RFC on these lists. CHCBOY (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)