Talk:Qantas/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

FAC Recomendations

OK. With the recent FAC nomination I put in for Qantas, I have had some recomendations (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Qantas) I am willing to make most of these changes myself or for anybody willing to help, I would apprechiate it. If I have no response for supports, opposing or anyone willing to help by November the 2nd, I will start making these changes immediatly by myself. I am doing this so Qantas will be a FA one day soon!

Please reply on my talk page as well as here. Aflumpire 22:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't Touch

Please do not any major edits to Qantas in the next few days while this is a FAC. I have a limited internet connection at work and none at home for a few days. If any major changes do want to be made in the next few days, please place a comment on my disscussion page. I will notify on this page when I have completed the major upgrades.

Aflumpire 22:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Go on editing as normal. I just got my internet back and its to late. Sorry everyone. Ill try to get it up to FAC standard in a month or so. Keep looking in this space for more info later down the track. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aflumpire (talk • contribs) 20:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Img cover sept.jpg

Image:Img cover sept.jpg 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 00:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Boeing 787-8

The article mentions Qantas are receiving 787-8 and 787-9, the 787-8 are going straight to Jetstar and shouldn't be marked down for the Qantas fleet. --Goldwing 5000 (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent Incidents....

In the last day there has been revisions done by people who suggest that some recent events are notable or not notable to be added to the page. Personally I dont think that events such as the rejected landing (VH-OEJ at LAX) where no serious damage or injury occurred are really worth adding to this page. The other recent incident at Darwin involving 717 VH-NXE however, I think is worthy as the aircraft sustained damage and may or may not still be too damaged to repair (I might be baised as I added this incident to the page!) Please add your opinons here instead of undoing peoples revisions etc.... Andrew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazkal (talk • contribs) 13:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• From what I've read (NT News, Nine News Darwin and ABC NT) when I was in Darwin the cost to fix (Media have stated that Qantas doesn't want to scarp the aircraft so they don't damage there record[1]) which will cost more then the cost of a new aircraft but the problem is Qantas hasn't said much therefore it could be media hype and the incident is still being investigated so we should wait for an outcome before adding it to the article[2][3][4], Same goes for VH-OEJ in LAX. For all we know it could be a tyre issue or something failed in the cockpit therefor it's just if's and could be's. I do believe that the VH-OJM from London to Bangkok should be left if it can be expanded. I've looked for some guidelines for Airline companies but yet to find it but if anyone can point me to the page it would be great! :) EDIT: Photos of the damaged VH-NXE -- Bidgee (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The accidents and incidents that were removed are not notable, not injuries, not serious damage or did not invoke a change in procedures with a wide effect. MilborneOne (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If the Boeing 717 VH-NXE turns out to have been damaged beyond repair then I think it would be significant in the context of Quantas as it would be their first 'hull loss' incident involving a jet aircraft. Given today's incident it might be a case of 'wait and see' 80.176.88.21 (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

VH-NXE was repaired and is flying again. The damaged beyond repair was used by 2 media outlets who didn't check their infromation. For QF30 please see the bottom of the page. Also QF30 will be repaired. Bidgee (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Aeroplanes

Somebody has added an asterisk linked to the Airbus A340 page in the middle of the sentence, "Although Qantas did not choose the Boeing 777-200LR, it is rumoured that Qantas is still looking into buying aircraft* capable of flying Sydney-London non-stop." This is Ridiculous.--Goldwing 5000 (talk) 06:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC) The Fleet section also says Qantas does have 1 A380 with 20 ordered, they do have 20 ordered but currently don't have one.--Goldwing 5000 (talk) 06:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

3rd oldest airline

can this be substantiated or qualified or cited? At the moment it flies (no pun intended) in the face of the linked article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not. The "world's third oldest airline" refers to an airline that is still operating today. Have a look at the table again. Qantas is thirded by KLM and Avianca. However, according to the reference that is actually cited, Qantas claimed that they are the world's second oldest airline. http://www.qantas.com.au/infodetail/about/FactFiles.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvjs (talk • contribs) 21:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's my interpretation of the sentence as cast that came to that conclusion; the qualifying element being right at the end. I may try a rewriting of that bit.GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

KLM have some claim to have been operating longer under the same name - albeit they are now a subsidiary of a parent company. The KLM article doesn't state though when they adopted the name/what they flew as initially, and the statement there isn't sourced. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Here in the UK, Qantas are currently running a TV ad campaign with the slogan "the world's most experienced airline", which explicitly says that the "more than 87 years" it's been operating is longer than any other airline. There's no on-screen small print qualifying the claim! 86.132.139.133 (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Inflation of Qantas fleet numbers

A discussion has been created at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines#Inflation_of_Qantas_fleet_numbers in regards to inflated numbers being used for Qantas (and some other airlines). If you have anything to add to the discussion, please do so at that link. --Россавиа ^Диалог 04:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

April Incident

I have removed the 8 April incident twice as not particularly notable against the WP:AIRLINE guideline, I could be wrong can the IP user who keeps re-adding it please explain its notability. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Landing or Taking Off

The picture entitled "Boeing 747-400 landing at London Heathrow Airport" seems to be a picture of a 747 taking off; given the aircraft's attitude and the partly retracted position of the landing gear. I note that his has been recognised before by the photographer but the wikipedia entry itself hasn't been updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.223.161 (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Where has it been acknowledged by the photographer as a taking off picture? Mvjs (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Dont think it needs to be acknowledged, nose up, not much flap and landing gear retracting - all thing you dont do when landing. MilborneOne (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

QF30 Incident

I do not feel that the QF30 incident meets the notability criteria for accidents and incidents as per WP:AIRLINES. It was not a hull loss or any serious damage beyond economical repair. Not a single passenger was injured. It certainly pails in comparison to the QF1 runway overrun. There are two other discussions on this very page about similar incidents. We could include the numerous 747-300 incidents that have occurred but we don't. Under this rationale, I have removed this from the page. Mvjs (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not notable. It just happened today and as all media does like with the Darwin, NT jet[5] (Which has been fixed and is flying again) which was buckled it only lasted a few days then died off in the media. No one was killed or serious injuries, the aircraft wasn't lost nor did it crashed and is repairable. 220.240.144.75 (talk) 11:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Having said that, I guess I agree with you. It's just the exaggeration of the media. Jackelfive (talk) 11:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added a comment in the Accidents and Incidents section to hopefully prevent it being added again. Mvjs (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Qantas Flight 1 should remain on the page as it was the most serious accident in more recent times. Jackelfive (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Qantas Flight 30 has an article created. Nachoman-au (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion. Please feel free to put in your two cents at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qantas Flight 30 Mvjs (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not nominate AFD's so soon after an article's creation. CapnZapp (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't tell an editor what to do. Bidgee (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't just like there was a minor problem with the landing gear but a large chunk of the plane just blew open and debris started flying inside! IT is very serious! They said that some of the ceiling and floor fell in! That is serious! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.252.88 (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Debris could have injured someone but it didn't, I've heard nothing of the ceiling or floor falling in. 220.240.144.75 (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If the ceiling and floor fell in people would of definitely been injured (if not killed). People are getting sucked into the media hype. It makes a good story to attack the impeccable (before someone says something, yes, Qantas had fatal crashes before the jet era but there has not be a single jet fatality). Mvjs (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Check the news and most sites do say that passengers said that some of the floor in the aisles fell in so people could see the cargo hold. Also, in first class some of the ceiling came down but not on people. It is quite serious and I think as serious as the QF1 incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.252.88 (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not as serious as the QF1 incident. The above comments are you have made are rubbish. The only why you can see the hole is outside the aircraft. 220.240.144.75 (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The airlines project guidline says incidents should be included if "The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport." Why does a 2.5 x 3m hole in the hull blown out by probable explosive decompression, combined with internal floor and ceiling collapse not count as "serious damage"? Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The incident fails both basic notability guidelines and WP:AIRLINES notability guidelines. Despite current media coverage as the event has just occurred, there is no evidence to prove that this event will have long-term notability, which is the real determinant of including such an event in the section. I have requested semi-protection for this article to prevent the edit warring between anon users. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and unless news coverage continues into the future and over and beyond the context of simply this piece of aircraft falling off, there's no reason to mention it in the article as a major incident. There's no indication that this has resulted in hull loss or that this is permanent damage to the aircraft. NcSchu_(Talk) 13:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Everyone: I don't have an opinion either way, but I will note that if people keep reverting each other blindly, I'll protect the page, probably to the version you don't like. Work something out here, stop with the "rubbish" comments, and come up with something reasonable. --barneca (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say that at this moment the incident is not notable. The image of the hole looks like one panel has come of (original research!) it is todays news and in the general scheme of thinks will disappear of the front pages. It could be notable depends on the cause it could be an explosive device or just some piece of equipment that had an serious unexpected event! I think we should wait from including it as all will be a lot clearer in a few days time. An encyclopedia is not todays news it has an infinite life it and we can wait for reliable information and sources on which to make a judgement. MilborneOne (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. My opinion is that this incident is notable, due to the relative infrequency of in-air incidents and the severity of the damage. There was significant damage to the hull of a major commercial aircraft sustained while in-flight. If it were something simple such as an instrument broke off I would agree that it is not notable, but this was a very serious event that could have been much more catastrophic. I fly 4-6 times a week and enjoy reading about these incidents. I would hate to have this piece of history stripped from Wikipedia. Thoughts? Benace (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You may want to read this first Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Also early days to know what the cause is and it's not the most significant damage since other B747 and even B737 have had worse damage then QF30 so at this point of time it's not notable. Media are using this to sell papers, make money from online ads and to get ratings. Bidgee (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ths incident, however, should be notable enough to include in the article as an incident...but once everything about this incident is known. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed but ATM it's not notable without facts (Since the media are not the AATSB). Best to wait for the AATSB to release it's report (Should be a month or two away) for the facts of the cause and not the media. Bidgee (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

How can you call this incident "Serious"? Yes, it was a 2-metre hole, but remember, this is not a Cessna we are talking about, this is a 747. if you look at the photos that show the whole plane, you can barely see the hole. Jackelfive (talk) 08:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You can see the hole (2m is big but not major) but the hole in the area outside the aicraft is bigger. and these [6] new stories now makes it more "Serious". Bidgee (talk) 08:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Strong Keep - This is highly notable because explosive decompression had occurred, similar to United Airlines Flight 811. It shouldn't require the tragic death of a passenger for a catastrophic incident to be included! Thanks! --Inet^pup_:o3 ^{⌈〒⌋▰⌈♎⌋} 17:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - As per my comments over on the AfD discussion, this incident satifies WP:NOTE and for that matter WP:AIRLINES. It satisfies general notability because despite the glut of media coverage, we are getting through this a range of sources - photographic evidence from inside and out, video footage on board after the emergency descent, numerous first hand passenger accounts, accounts from airport officials and statements from both Qantas and the ATSB, who have presently tagged it as a Serious Incident. Similarly regarding the WP:AIRLINES criteria, there was serious damage to the aircraft. It's not just a fairing falling off, but a significant rupture in the aircraft skin causing an explosive decompression. Even if it's repairable, it's serious damage. Clearly a mention of the incident in the relevant sub-section of this page is quite appropriate. -- Rob.au (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Wait for the facts - my personal opinion is that this incident will probably prove be noteworthly, however at the present time, any conclusion that this was caused by explosive decompression is original research as the official AASTB investigation has not been concluded yet. The facts are more important in an encyclopedia than the timeliness of adding the entry. So in a month's time when the report is published, all the conjecture will be removed, and the press coverage will have calmed down enough to review this entry objectively. PS: I take a very dim view of editors that fail to reach consensus on this page before changing the article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• This should be put up because it has International media also it is a incident. This clearly needs too be put up.Sparrowman980 (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• I'm going to put the link back now. The article has developed, and is notable. The article was put up for deletion within minutes by an Australian who is interested in Aviation and lives in Melbourne. This plane is just plain lucky it didn't break up and kill everyone. Anyway, the argument AGAINST this link is due to the argument that the QF30 article is not notable. It is, look at the AfD page. It is now just Keep Keep Keep (although that will probably change once Qantas Fans read this paragraph). The incident isn't going away, and is not part of Qantas' history and safety record :). The other argument against the link is that the article only has 2 references. Now it has 18 references, front page / headline news everywhere as well as being a serious incident. Also note that if anyone decides to delete this I won't bother to re-add the link (but everyone knows it will become part of this article within a week!) Buckethed (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted as I found a warning (which is of course not binding) in the actual article. Buckethed (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

By ignoring the message and re-adding it you are simply taking part in the edit warring that caused this page to get protected. Your conspiracy arguments are also not based on WP guidelines that justify adding the incident to the page. NcSchu_(Talk) 23:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• The heading of this article is 'Aircraft Incidents and Accidents'. This is without doubt an incident, regardless of how it's covered in the media. People are applying rules and procedures at the expense of interest and completeness. A three metre hole appears in the fuselage of a commercial jet while in mid air, leading to decompresion and a rapid descent. How can that not be an incident? Maxxy35 (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Explosive decompression of an airliner is extremely rare but very serious. This is likely to be of ongoing interest. The regulators and industry will certainly do a full investigation - treating it just like a fatal accident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drpixie (talk • contribs) 04:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

So are we going to keep it up?I believe still it is ABSOLUTELY worth it.Sparrowman980 (talk) 05:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

We'll see what the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qantas Flight 30 is and take the appropriate action. It's looking increasingly likely that it will be a keep. Mvjs (talk) 05:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• In light of expert wikipedian opinion (User:MilborneOne, etc.) articulated on the article's request for deletion page, I decided to be WP:BOLD and re-introduce this incident, now appropriately sourced and linked to latest findings, to the article. It is notable enough to be mentioned, despite local patriots' campaign to hide it from readers. --Mareklug ^talk 16:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! CapnZapp (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Article QALITY

This could really do with a complete re-write/re-org. It is a mishmash of good info, badly structured - it just wanders all over the place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.174.132 (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't it Quantas?

There is no 'u' in Qantas! Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CupO'Shit (talk • contribs) 07:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The word Qantas derives from the acronym for "Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services Limited". Although the name was originally QANTAS, it has since been changed to Qantas, as it is no longer used as an acronym Mvjs (talk) 07:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you consider it to be an acronym? It is. (PS, I did not vandalise the page, I only added a simple question. All other changes were not mine.)--Dmol (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The name was changed from QANTAS, an acronym for Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services Limited to simply Qantas, no longer representing Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services Limited. Mvjs (talk) 08:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It is one of the features of the English language, the word has long since lost its use as an acronym and over the decades has just become a word in its own right like Radar or Laser or even Scuba. MilborneOne (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, so if Qantas is now a word, not an acronym, why do we pronounce it as if a 'u' existed, as opposed to a hard 'c'? Yes, I realise that the result will be sophomoric, but remember that we pronounce Al Qaeda (or Al Qa'ida, take your pick) with a hard 'c', so why can we not be consistent? (And no, not because "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - that's not a real answer!) David (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It's just the way it is. Most likely the pronunciation began that way when Australians, knowing that the Q stood for Queensland, pronounced the acronym in a similar way. If it ever changes, then we'll record the fact here. --Pete (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Qantas does not fly to North Korea

on the map of destinations it has a spot for North Korea. There is no way Qantas would ever even consider flying there, so this is an error someone please fix it.

I think it's supposed to be Northeastern China, perhaps to signify Beijing and Shanghai. NcSchu_(Talk) 15:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Qantas declining quality?

I think that an article about how Qantas may be declining its quality (with offshore maintenance of aircraft) should be included. I remember seeing in the news that a Qantas aircraft that was checked by Malaysian Airlines was found to have about 95 defects that the MA engineers had not picked up. I know that the media may be bashing up some articles - I saw an article title regarding the Qantas domestic flight which the landing gear door wouldn't close saying that a Qantas door opened in flight - but hydraulic failures, explosive decompressions don't happen every day and I know that some incidents are only brought to media attention because of the recent incidents but Qantas is definitely beginning to decline in its quality and regarding those safety scares all Qantas says is "There was no safety issue at any time".Wjs13 (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Not all QF aircraft are serviced overseas. The 747-400 involved in last Saturday's diversion to Manila was serviced in Australia as confirmed by Qantas head of engineering, David Cox. All the talk of poor safety and maintenance standards by engineering union officials are just to mislead the general public. Most of the overseas maintenance organisations maintain aircraft for other leading airlines such as Lufthansa & Singapore Airlines which use the similar facilities without being accused of being unsafe. These organisations are also certified to meet Qantas and met CASA regulatory requirements. It's true that the heavy maintenance checks are conducted overseas but this has been done since the B707s and roughly less than 10% of the maintenance is done overseas. The other 90% is conducted in country! - Planenut (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Airbus A330-300 Domestic

On the fleet list, it says that the Airbus A330-300 flies non-domestic routes. However, I've been on-board a recent flight that operates daily to Sydney from Adelaide on the A330. I'm going to modify it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.166.134 (talk) 08:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure this wasn't a domestic leg of an international flight? Mvjs (talk) 08:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did fly on this QF82 flight that operated between international terminals. But this still does count as a flight flying domestically, doesn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.166.134 (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It's still classed as an International flight (If it's operated in an International terminal) and what you added is original research. Bidgee (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the general structure for this list is to list the ultimate destinations of the flights, not simply a domestic leg that continues onto the final international destination. Mvjs (talk) 10:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clear this up, Qantas has started using the Airbus A330-300 on some selected domestic routes (such as PER-SYD and PER-MEL). Check their booking site if you wish. pete (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

And also PER-BNE, as someone pointed out on the main page. pete (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I Cant find any A330-300 flights between Melbourne and Perth ony syd-per. Bwhistle (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent incidents

Why is there nothing on the recent incidents on Qantas flights, even though they make 15 minutes of Australian news every day? There should be a section added on the recent maintainance issues and emergency landings. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 09:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Other then Qantas Flight 30 the other incidents are not notable and it's a bit of an over and misleading statment to say that it makes 15 minutes of news each day. Bidgee (talk) 09:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if it was reported on the news for fifteen minutes each day, that still in no way makes it appropriate for Wikipedia, infact it violates WP:NOTNEWS. Mvjs (talk) 10:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A section on "media hype" might be good, highlighting the media attention following the March explosion that Qantas received (and continues to) over every minor delay.--Nick??? 03:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Not notable and Wikipedia is not a news site also media hype has nothing to do with Qantas as a airline. Minor delays are just that and do not belong on Wiki. Bidgee (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there should be a section on media hype given the amount of news theres been recently absolutely minor things, and the absolutely long shot style links between a minor event picked up during routine inspection and major events (such as Alaska Airlines Flight 261)Harvyk (talk) 07:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hype is just that (Hype) and doesn't belong here! Flight 30 is the only notable incident thats happened the rest are not since minor incidents don't belong. Bidgee (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added in a section on current media relations. I agree that hype does not belong here, however at least in the Australian media we have seen an unusually high amount of mainly sensationalist reports. Whilst the contents of the reports are unimportant the fact that the media (especially news limited) seems to be on a crusade against Qantas is. As such I have written a section on this fact referencing the articles.Harvyk (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

and I removed it based on that Wikipedia is not news, only minor incidents making it not notable since it hasn't changed anything in the airline industry, and media hype doesn't belong in an Encyclopedia. Bidgee (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

But I'm not adding in the hype, I'm placing in a section on the fact that the media is having a really good go at Qantas right now. At this point in time the media is virtually reporting on every minor incident as if it was a major event, and yet basically ignoring all other airlines in the process. This is tall poppy syndrome on behalf of the media. I agree that my writing may not have been at the highest quality (I'm certainly not a copy writer or anything like that), but I encourage someone else to fix up this section. I think it's something that should be noted, given that it's media "events" like this that can ruin a company.Harvyk (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the section across to Qantas Flight 30, as that was the catalyst and a undesirable result of the incident.Harvyk (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, there's been another 8 minutes of Qantas hubbub on the news today. When was the last time in history when ELEVEN (yes ELEVEN) planes have been grounded in 3 weeks? Yes, Wiki is not news, but don't you see this as significant? Surely there should be a (tiny tiny) section with a concise list of events. Just look at the 2008 South Ossetia war page - perhaps a list of events, in dot points, such as on that page, would work? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 09:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, yes wiki is not news, but this many events and this sort of media attention is highly unusual. How many times has you plane been delayed? I once had a delay of 4 hours due to a fault with a plane, and yet that never made it to the news, and yet a half hour delay caused by something been picked up in a pre-flight inspection is headline worthy. This is what should be included the fact that unbelievably minor events are headline worth right now.Harvyk (talk) 07:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but a delayed plane is not notable. I've been stuck before (24 hours is the longest) but its just not notable even if I sourced it well (If I didn't it would be breaching WP:OR, WP:NPOV just to name a few). Bidgee (talk) 07:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

See WP:RECENT, why not wait a month or so. If the media is still going on about it then it's worthy of inclusion. Michellecrisp (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Bidgee, I don't think you understand where I'm coming from. I personally couldn't care less if a Qantas plane was delayed for 12 hours, that's is now news, it shouldn't be included in wikipedia, and it shouldn't be a headline in the media either, however the news outlets right now seem to think it is. I don't want to have a listing on every thing that has gone wrong with a Qantas plane over the last few months, as with exception to the QF30 incident, every single other issue is so unbelievably non-newsworthy it's beyond a joke. The important detail is that the newspapers feel we should be told about even the most minor details right now, regardless of the facts. The articles which these newspapers are writing are poorly written, they are often making major mistakes, sometimes even contradicting themselves in the same article, and ensure that emotive words such as "plunged" and "feared for my life" makes it into the headlines. For a period there news limited was running a negative story on QANTAS every day, if there was no event (such as a delayed plane) that day they'd remind it's readers about QF30. What I think needs to be included in wikipedia is the fact that the media is currently having a field day at Qantas's expense, with little research done (such as the type of plane in an incident changes sometimes multiple times, sometimes to types of planes which Qantas doesn't even own). This is something which is damaging the QANTAS brand, and that's according to Geoff Dixon.Harvyk (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Regional Express (REX) has also had (and still is) negitive media for it's delays and issues and I fail to see why we should let media hype in here when the ATSB and CASA doesn't make a big deal over the problems other then Flight 30. Bidgee (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I personally have yet to see anything negative about REX, I'm sure it's there, but that's not the point of this discussion. Your right we don't want media hype in here, the last thing I want to see is a list stating the "problems" that QANTAS has had over the last month, as it's mostly planes delayed for a few hours, and that is not what wikipedia is about. What we should have is the fact that the Australian media is consistently reporting on QANTAS placing it in a negative light. This is irrespective of anything Virgin or any other regional carrier has done, in fact recently Virgin had an incident, and the media virtually ignored it. Put it under a section called tall poppy for all I care. The fact that these events are been reported on should be included as there are very few other airlines which go under the level of scrutiny in the media which Qantas is currently under. I'm guessing Bidgee based on some of your other comments that you like the airline Qantas. I'm the same, I like the airline, I want to see it do well, (there's something very patriotic about hoping onto the flying kangaroo and flying back to OZ) and this is why I think that the number of articles should be shown, potentially even without the headlines been included in the section if that makes you feel better.Harvyk (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

REX is part of the point. I do not see the point of giving the media what it wants which is to show that it's negitive campaign against some airlines (This is not just about Qantas but also other airlines such as Virgin Blue and REX) is working and infact those media outlets need to hang there heads in shame. "in fact recently Virgin had an incident, and the media virtually ignored it." Incorrect, The high speed landing maded the headlines. "I'm guessing Bidgee based on some of your other comments that you like the airline Qantas." I've got no feelings or opinions for any airline so don't go assuming my feelings. Bidgee (talk) 07:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Rumour about the merging of the flying kangaroo

\According to a local newspaper, Qantas is going to be merged by another airline, maybe not owned by Australians. The spokesman did not mention the name of the potential buyer, but he confirmed that the kangaroo logo will not disappear after the event of melding. The spokesman also affirmed that the brand of Qantas is damaged by the recent incidents. --DBPZ (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know Geoff Dixon has hinted that this may need to happen to keep Qantas afloat, but nothing has happened towards it as yet. In Australia there are some major legal obstacles which Qantas would need to get changed prior to them doing any sort of merger deal. It's because of these laws that there is Tiger airways based in Singapore and Tiger airways based in Melbourne. Technically Tiger airways based in Melbourne is an Australian carrier.Harvyk (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

For disputes regarding the list of LAX as a focus city/secondary hub

For disputes on this matter please go to Los Angeles International Airport and see the talk page where the matter is being resolved under the guidance of three administrators with the article protected. Thanks and see you there 96.5.66.240 (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

QF72 Emergency landing

The emergency landing of QF72 is not a notable incident since it was caused by clear air turbulence (Totally natural as it's caused by weather not the fault of the Aircraft or Qantas. Also Heat lows [Low pressure systems] are common in northern Australia ATM which can cause turbulence) and it's not like QF30 which was a fault of an oxygen tank (Cause of the fault is unknown and well likely to remain so, unless the bottle is found). Bidgee (talk) 09:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The people who were injured (reported to be up to 40 people) might argue otherwise, as would this person : 'However, Western Australia Police Commissioner Karl O'Callaghan later told the Sydney Morning Herald that he understood the incident had been caused by "some sort of systems failure".' http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7656171.stm

On 96fm this morning they were interviewing a passenger who received minor injuries. He claimed that he talked to pilot afterwards and the pilot mentioned that it wasn't turbulence, but he knew it was coming and a flight attendant managed to warn some of the passengers at the front of the plane a few seconds before the first drop. But all this is just speculation - hopefully we'll have a more reliable explanation soon. I'm just thinking something like an engine failure wouldn't cause such a drop because the plane would still have momentum and lift. Gemfyre (talk) 02:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess we will have to wait for the outcome of the investigation, before adding this incident to the Qantas page and the 'Aviation incidents / accidents' page. Also, should there be some note of the other incidents listed on the BBC article (one of them being a hydraulic fluid leak visible from the wing during flight!)? 166.83.21.221 (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where Western Australia Police Commissioner and/or BBC got it's information from since the ATSB is the one who knows not the Western Australia Police Commissioner and also has been said in the media that it was caused by clear air turbulence[7]. Bidgee (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It is still notable, to be honest. Notability doesn't mean that the accident was caused by pilot error or spontaneous mechanical failure. On this occasion, 20 people are seriously injured! That is pretty worrying. It is in incident with global media coverage where there were many serious injuries. It will end up on this page in the end :) 166.83.21.221 (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as this kind of story was what it was like when the QF30 incident was happening, stacks of people were saying that it isn't notable and shouldn't be included. But in the end, it was put on. This QF72 incident is not like QF30 or the other minor incidents, as this time there were injuries, some serious. Compare these injury stats to those of QF1 in 1999. QF72 had more injuries and serious injuries, and while I don't believe relying on early speculation from ninemsn, people are saying it could be a bad systems failure, and some passengers said they heard the sound of the engines change. I think for the time being we should not include it as we don't know what really happened, but when we get official info, then we should include it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.30.106.128 (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

How is it notable? The airline can not force passengers to wear the seat belts at all times (It's really up to the Government to make it law for the airline to enforce it such as the use of mobiles on aircraft.), which is how people got injured since they failed to wear the seat belts and just because the very same media outlets have been using anything to give Qantas negative headlines. IMO we should hold off until ATSB and CASA give there view when they release there reports to see if the incident is notable (and I don't mean notable for media coverage or injuries since it was not the fault of the airline) in it's own right. This incident is not the same as the QF30 incident. Bidgee (talk) 02:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Now before I say this, please excuse the perhaps angry view, but nearly all of those injured and who were in their seats were not wearing seatbelts! If anything, they deserve what they got. I am furious because most of the injured were not listening to the safety information and did not have their seatbelts on. Maybe when we put this point into Qantas' incidents area we should mention how most of the injured were total idiots who value not wearing a seatbelt more than their life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.30.106.128 (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't clear air turbulance, it was an equipment glitch. It should be on the Qantas incidents page http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSSYD38366520081008?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.253.241 (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There is still a lot of speculation around. Some news says turbulence, others say computer glitch. That is why it should not be mentioned on Wikipedia. Jackelfive (talk) 05:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've never flown Qantas, but I have to admit, that since I now live in the Antipodes (and I suppose you could argue I'm from the Antipodes too!) I will probably fly with them. And overall I do still trust them as an airline, they still have had no fatal accidents etc, but they do need to improve their maintainence. I know that national pride and not wanting to give Qantas a bad name can influence opinions, but I will just sit back and wait a few more days before this incident gets added to the pages. Regarding speculation, all aviation incidents are speculation until the final report is out, so we should delete all of the incidents from 2008, many from 2007, and maybe even some from 2006!. Also there is speculation about the Apollo moon landings, the existence of the Loch Ness Monster, and the true cause of the WTC collapse. This incident *should* be mentioned on Wikipedia - it is very notable. The speculation however should be discussed, with clear discussion of what is known, what is suspected (by the ATSB for example), and the random media speculation can be left out. I hope none of the 20 seriously injured people dies :( 166.83.21.221 (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well put it this way if the final report (Due in 30 days) has found to be a fault of Qantas which caused it then it should be added but at this stage the ATSB and CASA has not ruled anything in or out (IE: Anything that could cause such event is being investigated). I treat Qantas as I do to any other airline articles. Speculation by the media (Infact rather bias media speculation on a cause that could have been caused by the turbulence itself) is just that and does not belong but the speculations about the events (IE: 9/11, Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster ect) are totally different to this event. Bidgee (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Does the fault of the incident modify whether it should be included or not? The 1982 Jakarta incident wasn't BAs fault, but, it is still on the British Airways Wikipedia page, and I think the admins for that page would be annoyed if I removed it!. I do feel that, even if it is a notable event but is just caused by weather, it doesn't necessarily have a place on the Qantas page (as not being notably related to Qantas itself - could have happened to any plane), but may still end up deserving a seperate article (as a notable incident happening to a plane in general). Buckethed (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Some reports today have revised the injury toll up to as high as 74 (see http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24460959-948,00.html), many of whom have serious injuries. This is without a doubt the most serious incident in Qantas' post-WW2 history, regardless of whether or not it was caused by a natural force or not; that doesn't seem to have stopped many other airline incidents making it onto Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.200.150 (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Those people debating the criteria for inclusion of this incident should read Aviation Style Guide. There may be grounds for including this incident on the basis that it is "the result of unusual circumstances" and "it involves serious injuries". Turbulence is common, however severe turbulence (if that is indeed what it was) causing serious injuries is rare. There have also been suggestions that the incident was in fact caused by an aircraft fault. If this turns out to be true then this adds to the significance, especially it it is due to the maintenance aircraft (which Qantas have been under scrutiny for) or a design fault with this type of aircraft. Bearing in mind Wikipedia:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia:SPECULATION it may be best to wait a little while and see what the investigation reveals. 84.9.34.148 (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Like the other hyped up events which the media has been using against Qantas (I still feel the fact about unfair media targeting \ hype should be listed somewhere in Wikipedia. especially now that loads of credible people have come forwards and said it). Minor details such as the number of people injured seem to change depending on the spin they wish to put on the story. I heard (and read) 6 different news reports within the same hour each one with a different figure, each one sounding like they pulled the number out of thin air. I think we really do need to wait for the proper ATSB report, and not speculation from every man and his dog, inc WA police commissioner who really should have known better. Harvyk (talk) 06:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Harvyk, but with airline incidents, the Australian press never really gets its figures or facts right. I heard on news reports that there were only 20 injuries, now I'm hearing 70. Also then I heard that the aircraft was an Airbus A320, which if the media had payed any attention to, is not even in Qantas' fleet. We will have to, unfortunately, wait until the ATSB information is officially released before we add it to the page. But we definitely will be adding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.255.226 (talk) 11:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the wait for the ATSB report but only if it's a fault with the aircraft or something the airline's maintenance failed to do or did. You will find the report will state (Has been stated by some media reports) the the injuries was cause by passengers not wearing or not wearing the seat belts properly. urrm it's a Airbus A330-300[8] so the media did get something right. Bidgee (talk) 11:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Here some facts for you then: There were 14 serious injuries, another 30 taken to hospital attendance and up to 30 further required first aid treatment for minor conditions. Qantas getting bad press regarding a number of minor incidents is not relevant, likewise the question of if the passengers should have been wearing seatbelts or not. It doesn't matter if it was an aircraft fault, poor maintenance or turbulence either. We don't need to wait for the ATSB report before we include the incident, the facts are clear - 15 serious injuries and Aviation Style Guide states that an incident should be included if "it involves serious injuries" or is "the result of unusual circumstances". 84.9.34.148 (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The Qantas Flight 72 article got deleted, because consensus was delete (in fact, consensus was 'Delete, it was Turbulence, and it 'wasn't Qantas' Fault'). Turns out it was computer failure, and who is to 'blame' doesn't matter anyway! The article will be back soon anyway so no harm done there. Also, IP editors... Please note that the admin states he ignored the IP-based keep votes (e.g. not looking at the argument they placed), as they were IPs. So, please get yourself usernames on Wikipedia or your vote doesn't count! (Also note that it is the NUMBER of votes in an AfD, and not the logic, which counts, even though it is not meant to be like that). Buckethed (talk) 08:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Certainly raised my eyebrows... that's not my understanding of a consensus. But as you say, the article's reinstatement is inevitable (which makes its deletion pointless and counterproductive). -- Rob.au (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Of the most recent news I've heard, turbulence has been ruled out and it was caused by a computer fault in elevator control, yet the artical clearly states it was turbulence. That is why the it shouldn't be mentioned until at least the ATSB release their report and the media stop speculating. jackelfive (talk) 05:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It was announced today by Qantas that the cause of the incident was a 'world-first' computer glitch where the use of a passenger's laptop caused the plane's auto-pilot to switch off, sending the plane into a nose-dive. When there are web sources to link to this needs to be included for the sake of article integrity. - Trinkletty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.121.204 (talk) 11:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There is now a documented ATSB announcement and related release by Airbus of an Operators Information Telex containing "operational recommendations" which include new procedures "aimed at minimising risk in the unlikely event of a similar occurrence" and which also (according to the ATSB) foreshadows release Operational Engineering Bulletins, all over what Airbus has identified as a unique event. There is clearly demonstrable notability established at this point and accordingly I have restored mention of the accident, though hopefully it's a little more neutral this time. -- Rob.au (talk) 11:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Nationalised?

Was Qantas in fact nationalised, or did the government pay the owners the market price? Grassynoel (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

BA merger

If the airlines combine to create the world's largest carrier, what will happen to Delta since it completed its merger with NWA and it is the world's largest airlines. Will DL be the second largest or what? Cashier freak (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it will really matter now seeing as Qantas-British Airways merger talks are over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.134.180 (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

QF mobile phone trial

I've noticed the section on how a B767 is having a 3 month trial in which passengers can use some features of their cellular phones. I have seen this there for easily over 3 months so I'm wondering whether we should change it, extend it, or just delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.134.180 (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ryanair already allows Mobile phone calls, text and email some of it;s flights. It has for a while, so I don't think qantas is/will be the first. This is nohing new, should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.221.6 (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Qantas are not the first - Emirates announced 2 years ago the use of mobiles on flights, see here. Ryanair announced something similar a year later. Moreover, the source that was cited for this claim says nothing about Qantas being first. I have changed the article to reflect this. Cheers, Amaher (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

oops -just saw the date on that ABC article - 2007. So Qantas may have been first after all. In any case it doesn't say that in the ABC article, so until we get another source that says they were first we ca leave it. cheers, Amaher (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Boeing 747-338

All evidence I have found says Qantas is no longer operating these planes. Yes they are stored, but according to airfleets so are some other Qantas planes, and they aren't mentioned in the article, so why should the 743's be included. --61.68.226.176 (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because Qantas may not operate the planes doesn't mean that they're not still part of the fleet. As long as they stay registered to Qantas they stay in the fleet. Bidgee (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I vaguely recall the news story saying they were being flown to an "aircraft graveyard" in the United States. - Mark 14:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I wouldn't place any credence in airfleets; every time I have checked its info for an Australian airline it has been wrong. In Qantas' case last time I checked it a few weeks ago it listed the wrong number of 737s and listed the A330s that are operated by Jetstar (Qantas-owned yes, but not Qantas-operated). The only Qantas aircraft that are stored are the three B743s. However, as of 20 January they are still registered to Qantas. I have noted that they are wfs and are stored in the fleet table. In the history section I have mentioned that they are wfs and stored, with a reference to a news article stating the last one was flown to the boneyard earlier this week. The CASA online register is updated every week; soon the three 743s will be removed and we will change the numbers. Bt the way, every time someone has removed the three 743s from the table, there has been no effort to change the fleet total in the infobox, or to alter the fleet numbers in the text above and below the table. YSSYguy (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to support YSSYguy position the article at the moment clearly list the 743s and the fact they are withdrawn from service, no need to change until they are de-registered. MilborneOne (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Qantas Flight 2 incident

Why is QF2 not mentioned under "accidents and incidents"? http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/01/09/1199554720827.html 150.101.157.225 (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't personally see why not, although the listing of any Qantas incident will be routinely challenged for notability. It appears notable to me. [9] -- Rob.au (talk) 11:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. A previous incident occured with Qantas I think in 2005 where a similar incident happened - the 747 only had about 1 hour of back-up power remaining. The incident that was either in 2005 or 2006 was previously included in the article but was taken out about 12 months ago seeing as it wasn't really a major incident. -- Wjs13 (sorry I couldn't be bothered logging in) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.209.114 (talk) 09:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really one for the WP:OSE argument and I see no discussion of any such incident in the talk page archives, so I'm not entirely convinced the other stuff actually does exist. In any case, I would be comparing the incident against WP:AVIMOS#DENTNOTE, falling under that on the grounds that it involved unusual circumstances (flooding of the avionics bay is not typical) and that it was a non-injury incident which materially contributed to a change in industry or aircraft procedures. Within days of the incident, the manufacturer released instructions for checking and repair of the drip shields and this did uncover potential issues on other aircraft, which could then be rectified. According to the ATSB report, Qantas found cracks in 14 out of 30 drip shields inspected. There were also changes in procedures for crews to ensure they reported any water accumulation events in that area. Given the highly significant impact of flooding in that area (and this is categorised as a Serious Incident by the ATSB), the procedural changes that came out of the incident to greatly reduce the chances of it happening again are notable. -- Rob.au (talk) 10:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Destinations

From the list of destinations, Qantas doesn't fly to 144, it only flies to 53. QantasLink and Jetstar both have their own separate articles. For now I'll change the number, but tell me what you think. ætərnal ðrAعon 09:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

QF1

On the Qantas Flight 1 page, it refers to the QF1 overshooting the runway incident as the worst in Qantas' history. I want others opinions on this, because I would think that the QF72 incident would be more severe as it had over double the amount of injuries including some serious injuries, unlike QF1, which had 38 minor injuries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.175.234 (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Qf72 had more injuries but it just doesnt sound as severe as over shooting the runway —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwhistle (talk • contribs) 04:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Brisbane as a Hub?

Should Brisbane be classified as one of Qantas's hubs instead of 2nd hub as it has 60 daily flights and melbourne has 78 flights, only 18 flights less than one of QFs hubs.Also BNE serves more 4(5 if you only count non-stop) more Qantas Destinations than Melbourne (MEL-16, BNE-20)Bwhistle (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, because Melbourne and Sydney are bigger QF bases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.191.190 (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I rekon it should Virgin blue counts Melbourne as a hub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.98.116 (talk) 05:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The airline defines their hubs and focus cities, not us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.212.145 (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Where does Qantas define Brisbane as a primary hub? MvjsTalking 11:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

1968-84 and 1984-2007 logos nominated for deletion

See this discussion at WP:FFD. -- Jheald (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Lack of sources

A lot of editing and correcting goes on at this page - changes to numbers in the fleet, plane names / numbers / makes, etc, and none of the material is referenced. A reader has no reason to believe any of these figures - each week an editor comes in and 'fixes' it, and never leaves a reference to help with verification. I believe the article needs a clean-out, where unreferenced figures get deleted until someone can come up with some sources for this material. Otherwise, readers just can't have confidence in the data here. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - see my comment in the "Sex discrimination" section - I know it was the wrong place to put it, but over here it would probably be ignored. David (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Qantas Holidays

I thought that Qantas Holidays was no longer a "subsidiary", as it was sold off to Jetset? They are simply licensing the use of their brand name to Jetset. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.9.204.194 (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting one...the Qantas web site still lists QH under subsidiaries - but in the details about QH, it is clear that Qantas sold QH (and Qantas Business Travel) to Jetset Travelword Limited. In return, Qantas received a 58% shareholding in Jetset Travel world. So, the answer seems to be - a) Qantas Holidays is not a subsidiary of Qantas (although it looks like one), b) Qantas does have a majority ownership position in QH's parent company. 122.107.58.27 (talk) 05:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents

This article is not the place to detail every minor accident, incident or occurrence that befalls Qantas. Per WP:AIRCRASH, only significant accidents or incidents should be noted. Significance is not necessarily reliant on a number of (or indeed, any) deaths, but on a number of factors. Substantial damage, serious injuries, legistlated changes to operation as a result all add to notability. A few burst tyres on landing does not. Mjroots (talk) 11:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Time to split the article?

This article is getting a bit difficult to edit due to its size; I propose splitting the History section off into a new article, History of Qantas or something similar. YSSYguy (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable idea, just need to leave a brief summary behind. MilborneOne (talk) 12:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Fleet?

Is there any benefit from having the "1970" fleet list? It seems out of place, irrelevant and not very precise (eg: when in 1970's?) Printpost (talk) 02:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well for starters it's not 'the 1970s', it's '1970'; IMO it provides a nice snapshot of the state of the main airline in Australia 40 years ago. YSSYguy (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added more fleet info in the '1970's' area, renamed it "Historical Fleet" and given some context around the historical fleet area. Please add more if desired. Printpost (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

September 2010 Incident: Engine 'explosion'

Likely not significant enough for inclusion,but I'll leave a link to the news report for reference.

“ "About 15 minutes into the flight, the flight crew picked up on some excessive vibration in the number four engine," a Qantas spokesman told AAP.

The captain shut down the engine and informed San Francisco air traffic control of the problem.

An apparent explosion in the number four engine ripped a hole through its outer shell.

”

"New engine for Qantas plane after blast" Agence France-Presse(AFP) via Yahoo News
220.101 talk^\Contribs 00:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Presume the same as Qantas Flight 74 which has been proposed for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Nov 2010 A380 incident

Discussion at Talk:Airbus A380#Incident - 4 Nov 2010. Please make your views known there. Mjroots (talk) 05:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sex discrimination controversy

removed from article by Mjroots (talk)
Unsure how to fix this, besides just deleting the link, but it does not refer to sex discrimination, rather it's a story about airplane failure. Apologies for putting this here, but this is the proper context for this comment - hopefully someone will fix it! Thx. David (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

My bad - I put this comment in the article itself. The problem is that the referenced link is not about sex discrimination, instead it talks about metal fatigue on Qantas planes. Not sure if the link should simply be deleted, or moved, or what...? David (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Relevance of constant QF74 addition

Some people continue to re-add the late August incident of QF74 from SFO to Sydney. Firstly, this incident was minor and completely different to that of QF32 last week. The engines are different, and in QF74's case, it was a contained engine failure (aka the crew were able to shut down the engine and return to SFO without further incident, unlike QF32, where the engine was unable to be shut down). Secondly, I believe it is only being added to aid the national Australian sport of 'bashing Qantas'. If it was so important that it required inclusion, why wouldn't it have been included when the incident happened, not after the latest QF32 incident? Finally, I propose that people should refrain from adding the QF74 incident as it was not significant enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.152.173 (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what "Qantas bashing" is but I agree that the QF74 incident shouldn't be considered a major incident and as such should not be listed under the incidents section.D.c.camero (talk) 01:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for not defining, "Qantas bashing" is the way that the Australian media (and the Australian people who take what they say as gospel) make the incident seem much larger than it actually is. Typical responses include "well of course that is typical Qantas, they have all their planes maintained in India" as a reader said on an AdelaideNow article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.210.71 (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Disagree - An uncontained engine failure - one where engine components are ejected out of the engine - is exceptionally rare, and very notable. This isn't your run-of-the-mill contained engine failure, which is extremely rare too. This failure ejected material through the engine cowling and through the wing. This kind of failure is severe enough for something like the ATSB or NTSB to investigate. This is not a minor incident by any standards. "Contained" is not related to whether the engine can be shut down; contained means that any engine failure doesn't lead to shrapnel flying out of the engine and into the wing. The engines being different has no bearing to notability; just as the Jet Blue incident related to the landing gear doesn't make it any less notable to any other serious aviation incident. I'm not participating in any national sport to bash Qantas as I do indeed love the airline. An accident or a serious incident like this isn't "bashing" an airline. Whether the incident was included at the time, or otherwise, is irrelevant to notability; Wikipedia isn't perfect and some things are added late. This is notable. Please do not remove factual, notable information. 87.114.90.86 (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

219.90.210.71 - If you feel there are more notable events that haven't been included, please source them and include them, but do not persist in removing notable, sourced information about a serious uncontained engine failure that resulted in an emergency landing and severe damage to the plane. 87.114.90.86 (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand some of what you are saying, but it was hardly 'severe damage'. Qantas said 'an engine had to be replaced', that isn't exactly catastrophic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.210.71 (talk) 05:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I have given user 87.114.90.86 a 3 Revert Rule warning. He/she has edited this at least 3 times in the last few hours. An editor on the 3RR notice board suspects that user is the same anon as 87.112.207.101 which would make it a total of 5 edits. ...86 has tried to claim that my reverts are vandalism, and has even had the audacity to issue warnings to me. There is clear evidence that the user is experienced, , not a new IP user, and is only using an IP adress to try and hide their real user name or past experience.--Dmol (talk) 05:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Per above, contained engine failures are fairly routine, and non-notable Wikipedia-wise. Uncontained engine failures are very rare, and may be notable enough for at least a mention on Wikipedia, or an article. Mjroots (talk) 06:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

List of Qantas Incidents : A suggestion

I suggest creating resolving this problem listing incidents: create a List of Qantas Serious Incidents, to include QF32, and a List of Qantas Other Incidents, to include QF6, QF74 and so on. The List of Qantas fatal accidents is a very good template to use, and theres thousands of lists in Wikipedia and they serve their purpose well. They can also be sorted chronologically but also by other headers like aircraft type, cause etc by clicking the header making them easy to use anyway.

As far as notability and the like, well the List of Qantas fatal accidents are themselves not paticularly relevant or notable for many people (because we are in the jet age) but they are to others (historical perspective). Hence the same can be applied to the current events where one editor considers them relevent and others do not. Remember that some are not technically notable (like a contained engine failure), but the fuss, disruption, reaction, link to another incident and so on may be. For example an unattended bag left in a terminal, a guy with a old man mask, or a passenger uttering the word 'bomb' may not seem notable, but the reactions (security, panic, legalities etc) may definitely be. This is a better outcome than Edit warring and otherwise just wasting time and effort arguing. Let others, including readers, decide notability or relevance by either referring to the list or not.

I dont think one editor reverting another editors work unilaterally is reaching any form of consensus either, remember to Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. Unless its some form of vandalism or in a usual inappropriate content category .. do not revert blocks of content. It does not Assume Good Faith on other editors, and it causes a long list of other problems. It takes a lot longer to write something than to delete it, so if in doubt dont delete it. If somethings over emphasised or seems biased, rephrase it or move it to a more appropriate location.

Even removing unreferenced content should only be done in extreme cases, but still better to use the Template:Citations missing or Wikipedia:Citation needed which is created specially for that purpose. For example, some editors find it quite challenging to reference live TV content (i personally avoid it and prefer finding printed/online material). Adding the template could remind an editor to get the source or perhaps other editors will find it.--Advanstra (talk) 06:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it depends on how it is treated by other users. If it is simply there so people can add all the incidents they can possibly think of, it serves no purpose. Also, I have only seen it used in the past on airlines that have a long history of aviation crashes and incidents, such as American Airlines and Air France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.210.71 (talk) 06:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

My impression is that we already have a small set of editors who want to create another article every time a Qantas plane runs out of ice cream. OK, that may be a small exaggeration, but this proposal would tackle further proliferation of Qantas incident articles and sections all over WIkipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 06:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There are thousands of lists with material in Wikipedia that I'd readily consider serve no purpose. But thats my opinion. What one or a few editors think is of no use or purpose may well be of some purpose to somebody else. The fact that Qantas does indeed have a comparably good safety record, plus the large proportion of Australian based wikipedians, may prompts people to find smaller defects notable, its not unexpected and its human nature. This is reflected in the media and government (ATSB) too. Dont expect wikipedia to be consistent across all airline, topics or places because you'll be very disappointed. In Cuba, for example, nobody bothers to note incidents, either because theres little media coverage (eg unless an Australian is involved), too few Wikipedian editors in Cuba, fewer ways to verify, or theyre taken just not too seriously by anybody (unfortunately). A list of contained engine failures might be valuable for someone researching Cuban aviation or even just a passenger considering flying there.

Consider the relvance or notability of "Travellers holding Oneworld Sapphire or Emerald status are also welcome in Qantas Club lounges worldwide", do we need this on the Qantas page? Serve any purpose? This comment is ripe for deletion - it looks like advertising by Qantas to me or copied verbatim at the very least. Should we list that kind of detail or can people just go the the Qantas website. But the Qantas website wont list their incidents unless theyre forced to make a media release. Just as something being favourable to an airline is no justification for inclusion based on relvance or notability, as is something unfavourabe is no justification for exclusion. --Advanstra (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree, seems a bit adverty to me and not encyclopedic. 139.168.75.8 (talk) 09:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

In-flight entertainment

This area was a bit out of date. I have amended it to reflect January 2011 situation. References are cited. As it stands, the iQ system is aboard A380, four new A330-200 and Jetconnect + 2011 delivered Domestic 737. Rockwell Collins system is aboard 747-400, A330-300 and international A330-200. Mainscreen is the rest of the fleet sans QantasLink. 767 International (with Dreamtime seats) have looped AVOD in Business. Printpost (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

References are now cited, suggest removal of "Unreferenced section" tag? Printpost (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

LAX: Secondary hub or focus city?

Need someone to provide a source stating that LAX is a secondary hub for Qantas. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Qantas incident

There was an incident involving the same A380 from QF32 in June/July 2009 when the front landing gear failed. Should we add that to the incidents and accidents page? 161.130.178.177 (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

No as it was only a minor incident, just couldn't turn when it landed. So it didn't fail, just failed to steer. Bidgee (talk) 06:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks. Anyways, the flight was Qantas Flight 31. 161.130.178.177 (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Info Extraction

A 'fact file' pdf was recently published by Qantas in September 2010. After a quick review of it there is quite a bit of statistical information in that file. If anyone has any time, please help me extract the information and add it into the article. YuMaNuMa (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)