Talk:People Express Airlines (2010s)

Proposal for this to be main page

I have made a proposal to revert this page to be the main People Express page and rename the current "People Express Airlines" as "People Express Airlines (1980s)". Rationale: the common user will not see the link through to this secondary page, and also the other is only a "start class" page. Alternately, we can move this information to that page and incorporate what is there into a history section.--DeknMike (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Agree This airline is currently in operation, so it should be called People Express Airlines. It is therefore going to be more important (?) than the original PeopleExpress. —Compdude¹²³ 17:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment are we sure that the new airline is actually called "People Express Airlines" none of the sources actually confirm the name just the marketing names like PeoplExpress. MilborneOne (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The Aviation Week source refers to the airline as "People Express." And as far as I know, it's branded the same way as the original airline was, like this: PEOPLExpress. Yet the original airline's article is named People Express Airlines. Some WP articles use the airline's official name instead of the branding name; for example, Pan American World Airways was branded as Pan Am, yet the article name is still Pan American World Airways. —Compdude¹²³ 19:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. If any renames are done, this would be best brought for a full multipage move discussion at WP:RM. If a move for the old airline does gain consensus, then someone is going to need to manually update all of the links to the old airline that are hard coded in articles before the second move can be completed. Also using WP:RM would get the discussion in a single place. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The name was announced as People Express and the CEO of the former airline is advising the new company. Headquarters moved to Newport News, VA. Easiest is to fold this page's content into the other article and keep it as "history".--DeknMike (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean by fold this page's content into the other article and keep it as "history". Do you mean keep this page but mention this new airline on the old PeopleExpress page? Please clarify. —Compdude¹²³ 22:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd take the content of this page and merge it with the other PeoplExpress page; the current content of that page would remain as 'history'. Alternately, we would change the name of that page to show it as a defunct airline and let this article take lead position.--DeknMike (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Based on discussion, I propose merging the two and make the other's content as a 'history' section. --DeknMike (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

But that would seem to imply that the two airlines are related, when they're not, they share nothing but the name. The only reason I can see to do that would be if there weren't enough sources for two independent articles, which is not the case. C628 (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Back to 2 article? --DeknMike (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with proposal to move this to People Express Airlines and move the current article to a historical title. But not until this airline actually starts flying; if it ever does. Until that happens, I think a past airline should take precedence over a proposed future airline. Disagree with merging the two into a single article; even though some of the same people are involved, they are two separate companies with wildly different business models: The original was a bare bones, no frills airline, while this one is more of a full service airline. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Typo

"captol" should be "capital" for the articlee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.193.34 (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2012‎ (UTC)

Why is there even an article on this "airline"

It is all highly speculative (vis WP:CRYSTAL) and even the company's own website states: "Note: People Express Airlines, Inc. has applications pending with the U.S. Department of Transportation and is not yet a certificated airline.". So by their own admission they are not an airline at all, just another on a log string of paper airlines that may or may not take off. Harry the Dog WOOF 13:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It is in fact an airline with company offices, but without certificate to fly. Understand an airline that doesn't fly is indeed a bit of a misnomer, but unlike a paper concept study, People Express is only awaiting a final FAA letter to begin operations. --DeknMike (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

But if on the company's own website they state they are not an airline and indeed have pushed back their supposed start date into next year, I think this article is way too premature, and should be merged into the other one until its status is finally known one way or the other. There is absolutely no guarantee they will get FAA approval and until they do they are not an airline. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012 merger proposal

So People Express is not being "reborn" in 2012. If they fly at all it will be in 2013. Worth mentioning in the article on People Express article that there is a proposal to revive the name but until it is certified as an airline and actually flies, it is premature to have a separate article. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested moves

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

---

• People Express Airlines (2012-) → People Express Airlines
• People Express Airlines → People Express Airlines (1981–1987)

– People Express Airlines (1981–1987) is the defunct company while People Express Airlines (2012-) is open for business. I think that People Express Airlines (2012-) has to occupy the base title. Sawol (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

As with Pan Am, the original airline to use the name is what people expect to find when the search for People Express. Many people won't even be aware there is a new People Express. The new airline should be the one distinguished by its dates and the original should be simply People Express Airlines. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Harry; I'd definitely say that the original People Express is currently more notable than the new iteration of the airline, so the articles are fine where they are. I don't see any reason to move them. —Compdude¹²³ 21:01, 30 June 2014 (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.

IATA,ICAO, Callsign

This page has problems as Vision is the airline which has the above. iata, icao, designators and call signs. Once the startup has its own op certificate through the FAA then it can be called an airline. Personally, this topic of Peoplexpress could pretty much be served under brands Vision Airlines operates or d/b/a.

If People decides to charter Omni for its flights would we put Omnis call sign icao and iata designators in the infobox too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.209.166 (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

V2/Ruby is the call sign they use so that is the callsign that should be in the infobox. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:02,

4 July 2014 (UTC)

Direct Air in the making again? Once this cough, ticketing agency called Peoplexpress gets an FAA DOT certificate # then we will be able to call it an airline. I do not agree that a pseudo carrier should incorrectly be wikied a call sign, iata, and icao, designator of another certificated carrier107.17.117.15 (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Vision Airlines is the operating carrier. As such, all flight use the V2/Ruby designator. People Express flights are listed as V2XXX and so V2 is the designator for all People Express flights and this should be listed in the info box. If and when People Express get their own certification that can be changed. But for now, "People Express" is in fact Vision Airlines dba. So Vision's callsigns and designators apply. To reflect that they are "borrowed" I have added "(from Vision Air)" to the info box. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Airplane Configurations

I'm not sure how this should be handled, but I know that at least one of People Express' jets has no 2-2 seats (this would be the one they used on their first run to Boston) while the one used on the Pittsburgh run has 16 2-2 seats. It may be that each jet has a different configuration. I'm not sure how this should be handled when listing the plane configurations.96.248.207.2 (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Time for past tense?

The airline's planes have been grounded, it has been evicted from its HQ. It is defunct. Harry the Dog WOOF 13:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. In Jan. 2015, PEX was evicted from its office space due to non-payment of its utility bills. In Nov. 2014, it was evicted from the main terminal building and ticket counter. PEX's statement about the January 2015 eviction is the same old story of trying to get the airline flying again. Until a PEX plane leaves the runway this airline is defunct and gone. - ushawk1 - 2/14/2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.20.224.11 (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)