Talk:British Airways

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the British Airways article.
Article policies
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Companies Portal
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Rank in Europe

BA is listed as the third largest airline in Europe according to the list of largest airlines, behind Air France and Lufthansa. Is there a source for it being number 2? Eusebeus 17:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It generally needs a cleanup and I personally feel it is unreliable - the data is less than BA mainline figures (scheduled flights) - I may clean it up at a later date. TheTallOne 16:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the last published figures (2005) BA came in 2nd in Europe in terms of Pax traffic RPK and lufthansa 3rd, in terms of profitability the order was reversed due to Lufthansas group activities. Source: The airline industry guide 2006/7 published Sept 2006 by Airline business magazine.

[edit] Confusion of Loganair

Is Loganair really a subsidiary of BA? I thought it held a franchise to operate as BA, which is a different concept. Wikibob 00:23, 2004 Feb 28 (UTC)

The list of locations to which BA flies to in paragraph 2 is a long list that basically covers the entire globe, wouldn't it be simpler to just say this? Grunners 01:43, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes you can check on the IATA Web site which provides stastics on Airlines

[edit] BA abuse of the geographical names

The map which British Airways shows on its flights to the middle east, uses a wrong name instead of Persian Gulf. British people started using the wrong name before anyone else in Europe.

There are companies which provide software to British Airways and other airlines. Following to the UN-resolutions many activists have gone on record for notifying them and requesting that correct name should be used. Meanwhile, many activists have stopped flying with British Air.

They bluntly refer to Persian Gulf as "The Gulf," as if the Persian Gulf name cannot be used. Have you seen them use it for the Atlantic or Pacific ocean? "The Ocean!"

We suggest not to fly with British Airways until they correct the problem. --Mani1 07:47, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Umm, what? BA refer to it as "The Gulf" for historical reasons, because it's the most important gulf in the world, and because "Persian" is actually somewhat offensive to the non-Persians who have plyed the waters of the said gulf for millennia. No? Anyway, fascinating, but rather minor, surely?
James F. (talk) 18:06, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Most people in Britain say "The Channel" rather than "The English Channel". Similarly, the French say "La Manche". That's not a reason to avoid the Channel Tunnel! Be realistic; everyone knows that, unless in a specific context, "The Gulf" refers to "The Persian Gulf". Mat334 00:18, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, I'd like to know whether all these activitst avoiding British Airways are also avoiding Gulf Air? Mat334 00:18, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the dirty tricks scandal that BA ran against Virgin on this page. It's as if it never happened. And BTW, I agree, it's "The Gulf", meaning, in the UK at least, "The Persian Gulf", unless otherwise stated. We like to understand the implied meaning behind our language, taking the context in which the information is recieved into account when drawing our conclusions as to it's meaning. Simply complaining that the wrong name was used when in fact it was a shortened version of the correct name, was lame to say the least. If I were to say the "UK" without saying the "United Kindom of Great Britain and Northern Island", it would not be because I had learned the wrong phrase. What is this, the language police?

Sorry, it is not United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island, but United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

  • In any case, Mani1, you said "British Air" rather than "British Airways". I suggest that you stop critizing others for supposedly incorrect language use until you do so yourself. Mat334 01:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is the stupidest arguement I've ever heard. "Don't fly until British Airways until they correct the problem??" --Prisonnet 07:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Dirty Tricks"

Yes, there needs to be information on BA's uneasy relationship with Virgin. However, bear in mind that a lot of what Virgin says or does is merely Richard Branson trying to create hype. Mat334 01:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • I've posted the info for a book about the case. james_anatidae 02:26, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Published by Virgin?! That's hardly NPOV. Mat334 12:31, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Not originally. It was first published in 1994 by Little, Brown & Co, part of Warner Books. (ISBN 0316908460). The version I posted is just the updated and revised version. james_anatidae 22:39, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Separate Destinations article

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 22:26 (UTC)

The list of BA destinations is massive, and listing them on after the other in this article rather than in a bullet-point list (as it appeared, briefly), as well as being messy, ugly and confusing, doesn't touch the depth of the extent of BA's services. Listing city after city without a note to what continent or country they're in, or even which airports it serves, doesn't convey the reach of the airline. How many people know where Lusaka or Manama are without having to click on those cities or look at a map? If there were 15 or 20 destinations, then I would agree that there is no need for a separate article, but when a more comprehensive and explanatory list can be included elsewhere with a clear link between the two, I think it's highly complimentary and also fits into the growing network of airport articles with links between each. It's also consistent with the other large airlines in the world (see Category:Airline destinations).
No qualms about adding a date reference at the top of the destinations article though. This one is consistent with the BA Summer Timetable, so something to the likes of "Valid from 03/05 to 10/05" (say, I don't know dates off the top of my head) would be helpful. --Ayrshire--77 4 July 2005 07:01 (UTC)

[edit] Industrial Action

I've removed the recently added "Industrial Action" section for now, as I really don't see it as particularly relevant. Yes, it so happens that in the past three years in a row wildcat strikes have crippled the BA network, but only for a period of 24 hours, all focused at Heathrow, and in 2003/4 a limited service managed to operate from LHR even at that. The knock-on effect is obviously greater, but it's not as if the airline is frought with industrial relation problems. There's no mention of the frequent strike actions at Air France or Alitalia in those articles, nor the long strike by Aer Lingus staff last year, so why here? Many companies are hit with strike action from time to time, unless it's prolonged and seriously damaging I don't think it merits a mention. --Ayrshire--77 07:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  • The information was perfectly valid, and it should not have been deleted. So what if similar information is not mentioned elsewehere. A user is not obliged to ensure uniformity throughout wikipedia when adding new sections. The strikes at BA are substantial, and last for longer 24 hours. They certainly have one of the worst industrial relation problems among top UK companies. Astrotrain 20:12, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Glasgow International Airport

I added in Glasgow International Airport as a focus city. BA used to operate a GLA-JFK-BOS route. I'd think that earns the honour of a focus city. Not exactly a secondary hub though. And also Loganair has it's home-base here. Thanks, --anon. 21:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi there me again, someone has removed the part about GLA. I will add it back in again, but if it is removed this time then I won't enter it again — I get the point. But also, someone has changed the website address to the older one. The person is not British. If you have saw the ads. done by BA, at the end of the ad their address is: http://www.ba.com. --an. 14:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I didn't remove Glasgow, although I did change the address. ba.com simply redirects to britishairways.com, so I changed it to avoid the redirect. Dbinder 15:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Guys, I removed Glasgow, and I'm going to do it ag

[edit] MRLD

If you see the deletion tabI put it up because someone vandalized the page. I did not commit the vandalism I am try to put a dletion tab on it. Mrld 20:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] More External Links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to:
  • IP user, you will be permanently banned if this link is ever reposted here on on the BA webpage. Jsw663 13:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The reason for the above has been posted here. Jsw663 17:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] subsidiary

It would appear that "Airways Aero Association Ltd." might be a BA subsidiary. They operate the "British Airways Flying Club" and run the "Wycombe Air Park/Booker Airport". There also appears to be some information her under Captain Airclues. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Airways Aero Associations Limited (name changed on 3rd January 2006 from Association to Associations) is a subsidary of British Airways PLC (99% share) (they are 66 subsidary companies not many of them are mentioned in the article !. MilborneOne 16:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future Fleet

Their have been 10 orders made for the 777, which was confirmed to myself 2 days ago from a senior manager.Benny45boy 11:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, could you include a citation to a reliably published source for this? Addhoc 13:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, a reliable citation please. "Verbally in internal meetings" is not acceptable as a citation. Mark83 13:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

On another note, I accept the point mentioned above, is there any proof of the future Airbus options orders, because I hadn't heard about that. Benny45boy 20:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorist Threat

Do we really need a very large section on the terrorist threat, maybe a separate article should be created?? Benny45boy 20:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flight Numbers

The article states that "[g]enerally, odd numbers are for services departing Britain, even numbers are for services entering Britain." I would like to contest this. I would argue that eastbound flights have odd numbers, whereas westbound flights have even numbers. E.g. a section in a USA Today column (at http://www.usatoday.com/travel/columnist/grossman/2005-10-31-grossman-side_x.htm) supports this argument. Also, in practical examples, flight BA794 flies from Heathrow to Helsinki (eastbound) and BA795 back from Helsinki to Heathrow (westbound). Countless other examples can be found. A correction might in order. --GaryK84 00:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

A few vague dates in the article need cleaning up. For example:

In July, British Airways announced...

July which year?

British Airways announced recently that they will launch their new Club World product towards the end of Summer 2006

Prime example of the misuse of 'recently' - Summer 2006 has been and gone. Recently relative to what, then? Carre 18:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I think I even wrote the section, as far as I am aware it still hasn't been launched, so I will rewrite the sectionBenny45boy 21:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Call signs

I am not aware of British Airways using the call sign Santa anymore, as I am not sure whether or not they even do charter flights, does anyone have any info on this. 137.222.10.57 21:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that they have used SANTA for christmas charters out of London Gatwick last year - it doesnt matter if they do not use it is still offically allocated to ba.MilborneOne 21:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
If they are no longer using it, it should be mentioned here. Brian Jason Drake 04:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cross wearing controversy

I removed the statement

Neither was Christian support for Eweida universal.[1]

as the dissenting voice was very much a lone voice, from someone who no longer speaks for his church. [1] If restored it should be qualified, however the section of the article is getting too long anyway and will need consolidating and tidying in due course.

Springnuts 22:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC).

Also I removed

BA suggested that dangling items such as necklaces are prohibited on health and safety grounds.[2]

as it is just not supported by the reference given - nor by BA's public statement about the affair on their web site (now removed as overtaken by the statement announcing the review)

Springnuts 22:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've put the health and safety point back in as it is mentioned twice by the National Secular Society. I have also re-inserted Eweida's public statement about Jesus because it is on the BBC website: [2] Finally, I have removed the claim that Tony Blair supported her because this is very POV - he actually said that BA shouldn't bother fighting these things. Jsteph 06:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I would also suggest that this debate, or Nadia Eweida herself, merit a page of their own. Jsteph 06:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Whilst freely admitting this needs to be covered I disagree with the promience that it has been given. I propose a separate article to be created or I will dramatically reduce the article to about 3 lines.Benny45boy 13:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed a somewhat contentious sentence - I suggest that the Biographies guidelines would not allow it, certainly as currently formulated and without any justifying reference. [[3]] Springnuts 22:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you mean the quote about Jesus. This is on the BBC website and is presented as a direct quote, so to me it's reliable. I could, however, put in something more oblique. Jsteph 02:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that a separate page be created about this controversy. On reflection it's probably not worth creating one about Eweida herself. Jsteph 04:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Couple of things -
I disagree with Jsteph about Blair not aligning himself with Eweida - he used the words "do the right thing" - but it is I guess arguable that he meant "the right thing is not fight it as it is not worth fighting" as opposed to "the right thing is to let christians wear crosses openly".
I concur that a separate page is needed - I mentioned above that this section is getting too long. The BA article should have a short ref with a link to a separate page. Question - if title is not Ewida, what should it be?
Springnuts 22:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
British Airways cross controversy? Jsteph 02:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Further to this, I have gone ahead and created the page - it's British Airways cross controversy. It started as an exact copy of the information on the BA page, but I have applied further edits to it. You may want to change the title. Also, I have copied the debate on this talk page to the new article's discussion section. Finally, I've cut down the information on this article so we don't incur the wrath of those who write about BA. :-) Jsteph 03:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I don't wish to offend anyone who is Christain, this woman has been working for BA for goodness knows how long now and has never once complained about the uniform policy, and thus, I feel that the tone of the article is biased in favour of the woman and needs to be redressed if this is going to count as an article and not an arguement Benny45boy 23:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Club World

When do people think that the Club World article should be altered in order to reflect the new Club World product being the definitive product and not just a, future product. I appreciate that it isn't on all aircraft however, it will be on the majority by the summer/autumn and thus, I Benny45boy 20:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)believe that the section should be altered to reflect this.

[edit] Flight Numbers

I have removed this section due to it being inaccurate and irrelevant. However, if somone believes this is relevant then I will not remove it again. However, if it is put back as being a reversion of vandalism then I shall delete it again.Benny45boy 16:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I notice you don't have a section on BA's codeshares with other airlines, such as the extensive London Heathrow-Singapore routes, and Singapore-Australian cities codeshares. Thank you, Social Studiously.


[edit] Number one transatlantic airline

Quote from Delta Air Lines: Delta ... carries more passengers across the Atlantic than any other carrier worldwide Now which one is it?--Arado 10:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boeing customer code

As I understand Wikipedia policy, the burden is on contributors to provide a way for readers to verify their information using reliable sources, and I cannot see how the Boeing customer code is an exemption to this. There is no source information at all given in either this article or List of Boeing customer codes; hence it should have a {{Fact}} tag, but someone keeps removing it. Brian Jason Drake 04:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right there is a burden on contributers, especially if challenged. I have added a link to the official UK Aircraft Register listing Boeing aircraft registered to British Airways and showing the use of the 36 code. MilborneOne 20:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Casino Royale

Tried removing the reference to British Airways deleting Richard Branson from Casino Royale. I cited the fact that it is not really notable or controversial and was just an over zealous marketing error. The section has been expanded and added back to controversies. I dont want to delete it again without a concensus but my point is that in the 88 year history of the airline it is really not that notable. It certainly is not controversial, press coverage is more in amusement rather than it being a controversy. It might qualify as a sideline in the mention of Casino Royale in trivia but even that is doubtfull. Interested if any watchers have an opinion.MilborneOne 12:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

BA did the same thing with another movie a couple years ago that featured Virgin's UCS and has probably done it multiple other times. I wouldn't say it's that it is very controversial, most people seem think it's more funny than angering. NcSchu 12:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I flew recently on a Virgin flight, and having heard reports about BA supposidly removing Richard Branson I noticed that the scene wasn't present on his own airline. Usual rubbish you see in newspapers. 81.5.185.229 19:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

there is also a consensus elsewhere in this talk section that the Casino Royale mentions should be removed, I also agree 100% so I'll get rid of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakehandsman (talk • contribs) 14:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Engineering

The engineering section is getting to be quite large! Does anyone think it should get it's own article? Greenboxed 17:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, there's a lot of excess information in the section that, if it is not moved to a separate article, needs to be condensed. NcSchu 18:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Greenboxed 20:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Pictures used in article

All these pictures show British Airways aircraft in the latest livery, which has been used since about 2000. Can we have some pictures of aircraft in the (IMO more attractive) Landor scheme (the cigarette-packet style) and the original red-fin schemes? Dyakson 01:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incidents

Two incidents of BA 747s with single engine failures are included in the incident list. Are these noteworthy because the flight continued? I am aware of an incident in (approximately) June 1978 when a BA 747 en-route from Heathrow to Hong Kong via Bombay lost power from one engine three hours into the flight. The aircraft dumped fuel and returned for a landing at Heathrow. There were no injuries.

They are included because they happened to the same aircraft within a short period of time and because the incident, or at least the initial one, was highly criticised; the incident you have noted is not as notable. NcSchu 16:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I think there are problems with this based on the definition of a notable incident. It seems opinions vary and some incidents are dismissed entirely at what seems like the discretion of the most recent user. Unless there are a set of guidelines how is it possible to agree what is a noteworthy incident. (Re minor collision at heathrow).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.25.223 (talk)
There are actually definitions of what a "notable incident" is. Check WikiProject Airlines for more information. The minor collision you noted is not notable because collisions at airports happen very frequently, the fact that this happens to have gotten slightly more press is irrelevant, especially when it's not very serious. NcSchu(Talk) 12:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Just to support NcSchu as I have on more than once removed the recent minor incident. Although it is my opinion that it is not-notable and not than uncommon I was also following project guidelines and precedents. Please remember that just because it is in the news one-day it does not make it notable. MilborneOne 15:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't find anything on notability under the Airline article guidelines. can you link directly to the page? After some searching i was able to find a definition relating to the 'List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft' page.(WP:ADL) I agree that Heathrow collision was minor and unsuitable for this page however the counter argument is that such errors at large UK airports occur - does any reference exist to this currently? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.240.160 (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Go down to Structure and then look where it says "Incidents and Accidents". Here, I'll just quote it for you, "Major incidents or ones with fatalities over the airline's history." NcSchu(Talk) 03:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split Engineering section?

I think this is far too detailed for this article. I have cut it down be removing repitition and a general cleanup. However it still sits oddly in the article in my opinion. If this is really such an important part of BA I suggest splitting it into a new article. If it isn't really that important I suggest people can find out about it at the relevant BA website. Mark83 09:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I would support your suggestion that the engineering section should be split out to a separate article.MilborneOne 11:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't normally fast track it like this, but given your support and the sentiments expressed above by Greenboxed and NcSchu I'm going to go ahead with the split. Mark83 11:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Executive Club

I noticed the existing text on Tier Points for renewals was a little simplistic (4 Full Fare Returns for Silver, which of course is only true for long haul to US Eastern Seaboard or further), so had a go at expanding this, including trying to delineate the Fare Basis codes that pertain. I think what's there is a fair attempt, but if anyone reading this has access to the latest Executive Club Inventory Bucket mappings they may like to check this over ... Bill Martin 21:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the Executive Club bit is advertising and should be made even more simplistic, almost could be a one liner, in fact the first sentence would probably be enough. If readers are that interested then I suspect all this information is on the BA website.MilborneOne 21:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm 50:50 on whether or not this section should be condensed: the retentionist argument would be that although it would be an entirely reasonable assumption to assume you could find the stuff I added in as to Eligibility etc. on BA's website, I couldn't find it there today :-( Bill Martin 21:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
You could try [4].MilborneOne 21:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
If you use the online calculator [5] the only distinction of Inventory Bucket it makes is between Fully Flexible Economy and "Lowest". As I tried to cover in the table, some discount fares are TP earning, some are not.Bill Martin 07:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've retitle this section to the generic Loyalty Program.Bill Martin 07:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the reference to earning tier points to a more simple and correct version. You only earn no tier points and 25% miles on cheap Euro & World Traveller fares. If you purchase a Y, B or H fare in economy you earn tier points and 100% miles. Anything in a premium cabin regardless of flexibility earns full tier points and miles for that class of service. If anyone is interested I can provide pictures of Blue, Silver and Gold cards to replace the one blue one. I have another separate picture of a Premier card a friend provided me with if anyone cares. Premier technically isn't part of the Executive Club but it is mentioned. I'm new to Wikipedia so am still trying to figure out how to include my own pictures! Thanks Fraser. 4.45am, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Made minor simplification as the previous amend means no longer need "Full Fare" in the example. Restored "Loyalty Program". Bill Martin (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Side template - needed there?

A question for the BA article contributors. Is the template Template:British Airways really needed on the right hand side where it is. As it is a navigational template, it really should be at the bottom of the page along with the other templates, and as it is done on other airline pages. I am proposing that the template be changed to this template User:Russavia/BA and moved to the bottom of the page. Reasons.

  • Firstly, no other airline articles have such a template there (thankfully) and in the interests of uniformity across articles, it would be best to move it down to the bottom of the page.
  • Secondly, to my eyes (and doubtless many others I would gander a good guess) it is unsightly where it is.
  • Thirdly, it is not collapsable, so that those who don't want to see the template have no choice about it.
  • Fourthly, the way the template I propose is set up it is easy for people to edit as required, instead of having to hunt thru source to try and find the name of the template, and then get to it the long way around.
  • Fifth, it's position has stopped me from placing a photo of a British Airways 747 in basic BOAC colours but with BA titles in the history section, I think it would be preferably to have photos/diagrams in the article space rather than navigational templates.

If there are no objections within the next 7 days, or if an overwhelming majority of people support the move down the page perhaps earlier, I will change the formatting of the template and move it down the page.

As a sidenote, as there are already some templates already, it might be a good idea that it be discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines whether the Lists relating to aviation template is really required in airline articles, as the airports sub-project has removed that particular template from airport articles, and I can understand their reasoning for it. --Russavia 18:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As there have been no objections I have replaced the BA template as proposed above, and have moved it to the bottom of the articles concerned. On a side note, it appears that the template doesn't exist on all of the articles in the 'series' so I hope its ok that the main BA editors add these to the templates as needed. --Russavia 14:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British Airways plc

There seems to be some confusion as to what constitutes a parent company (not on just this article). British Airways has the legally registered name of British Airways Plc. It operates simply under the name British Airways.

From [6] you see that the British Airways 'group' consists of British Airways Plc (the airline), in addition to several subsidiary companies. British Airways group is not a legal name, simply a way of referring to British Airways Plc (the airline), plus the subsidiary companies.

If you look at [7] (PDF file) - Page 103 (of 106) of their annual report lists the major investments of British Airways Plc. None of these are British Airways (the airline) as British Airways (the airline) is in fact British Airways Plc. Page 31 (of 106) lists the major shareholders in British Airways Plc, none of these have a shareholding with voting rights large enough to be able to control BA boardroom decisions, therefore, none can be considered a parent company.

Hence, the parent company field of the infobox should be left empty. --Russavia 11:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As you are aware this is also being discussed at Template talk:Infobox Airline, I still disgree and I reckon that the parent company is British Airways PLC even if it is the same entity. As a public company it does not have parents just shareholders. Therefore by default it is its own parent! - But despite my disagreement I dont have a serious problem if you remove the entry from the parent field again. If an agreement on a new infobox gains concenus then the use of the fields would be clearer particularly if an extra field is added for legal name. MilborneOne 11:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kids Council

I noticed that the section on kids council had been deleted, but i have looked into it and it is a legitimate fact. It might not deserve it's own sub-section but could probably be mentioned. Bthebest 12:38, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Not looked at it myself but would not appear to be notable, market research on branding and services is not that uncommon. Can any council that recommends free chocolate for children be that serious! MilborneOne 22:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit War

I feel I should start some kind of post here on the current edit war regarding information on a passenger death on board and the price fixing debacle. I resent the fact that I've been labeled as a "vandal" when I clearly stated logical reasons for removing the said information. First of all, the price fixing is discussed in a different section other than "Incidents and Accidents", and I should point out that "Incidents and accidents" is not the correct section for this kind of information on a scandal anyway. As to the passenger death, I felt this information was not notable enough to be included in the "Incidents and accidents" section, because, as the anon user stated in his/her edit, passenger deaths are fairly common in aviation and each airline experience them several times a year on average. Why note this case in particular? Simply because one passenger didn't like the fact that the dead body was kept in a seat near him/her. This does not define notability. The anon user also included in the edit that keeping the body on board "risked the lives of the other passengers". This sounds very much like blowing the incident out of proportion and doing a quick google search I cannot find any reliable, medical institution that supports this claim. Therefore this edit does not belong in the article either. NcSchu(Talk) 15:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems the anon user, who apparently has a changing IP address, is ignoring this discussion and continuing to add this improper and irrelevant information to the article. I left a message on the latest IP address's talk page, however given that the address has not stayed for more than one edit it's unlikely whether he/she will get the message. NcSchu(Talk) 02:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
NcSchu your reasoning is logical and I support your deletions. MilborneOne 10:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logo needed

Looks like the BA logo was deleted due to lack of sourcing... Enigma3542002 19:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thx for adding it. Enigma3542002 08:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Family Guy

An IP user keeps adding a cartoon image and reference to a TV program called Family Guy. I have reverted it a few times (I have never heard of the program!) but the IP user insists it is notable. Any comments on its inclusion or not please. MilborneOne 21:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've heard of the program, but that still doesn't mean it's notable. Even though judging from the tail it was pretty obvious it was British Airways, the airline technically wasn't mentioned or shown by name, meaning that technically it wasn't British Airways on the show. So no, I don't think it should be included. NcSchu(Talk) 22:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Can I suggest that we may risk in being overly literal in insisting that a textual mention of the name is required to make a mention. The concept of Brand, as accepted in Law, does not require this - a commonly recognised "device" such as the tail logo, is still a use of Brand. I therefore would see no harm in adding a reference to a quite well known, free-to-air TV program alongside other Media mentions.Bill Martin (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
It's trivia, plain and simple-it adds nothing to the article but worthless information. NcSchu(Talk) 21:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I entirely agree it's trivia - but if that's the grounds we should expunge "Goldeneye", "Die Another Day", "Coming to America", "Parent Trap", "Three Men and a Baby" and "A Fish Called Wanda" as well for consistency. As John Heywood put it in 1546: "wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?". Bill Martin (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Fine with me, though I feel like those entries are more relevant than Family Guy because, as I said, the airline isn't referred to or shown by name, therefore most people wouldn't notice/recognize it. NcSchu(Talk) 00:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I dont have a problem with the other media entries being deleted! - although I have heard of at most of the films still not sure what family guy is other than an american cartoon programme - is it shown outside of the US? MilborneOne (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Family Guy gets a couple of episodes per week, plus repeats, on BBC Three (Freeview) - website is http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/familyguy/. So what is it to be - add Family Guy, or zap the others? Bill Martin (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Zap. NcSchu(Talk) 20:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Zap. MilborneOne (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Text removed from "Media" in accordance with above discussion:

The airline features in films and TV Shows:
  • The James Bond films Goldeneye and Die Another Day. The Bond relationship appears to have ended with 2006's Casino Royale.
  • Coming to America, in which the prince arrives in the U.S. on board a BA Concorde.
  • The 1998 remake of The Parent Trap, in which Hallie arrives in London on a BA aircraft.
  • Three Men and a Baby, in which the three men arrive at the airport and assume that the baby has been taken to England on a BA aircraft.
  • A Fish Called Wanda, when Archie and Wanda escape to Rio De Janeiro on a British Airways 747 at the end of the film after some fighting on the tarmac below the plane.

Bill Martin (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B777 Seating

I added the following text:

In 2002, British Airways became the 1st customer to introduce a 10 abreast economy class configuration on the Boeing 777, an aircraft which had only been designed for 9 abreast, by using specially built narrow seats and narrow aisle. This was applied to 3 GE engined 777-236ER (G-VIIO / MSN 29320, G-VIIP / MSN 29321 and G-VIIR / MSN 29322) which are predominantly used on Caribbean routes, but are sometimes flown to and from Florida. Since BA piloted this development, which has earned some opprobrium from both passengers and the press, the configuration has been emulated by Emirates Airline and China Southern

This has been reverted by MilborneOne as being "interesting but dont think it is or was controvertial" I think this needs to be discussed, as:

  • The introduction of the 10-abreast was a "first" for BA -- albeit not one they should be proud of!
  • I would contend it is controversial in that it attracts adverse comment ... and actually looses them pax (at least 3 UK organisations I know won't fly their non-business entitled staff on BA to Florida and Caribbean as a result)

So I would still like this to be in "Controversies", but if not then should be in Fleet or Cabins Bill Martin (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

References would be useful, specifically, references which describe the decision to fit ten abreast seating as controversial. Nick (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The controversy hit the TV screens with BBC's Watchdog as a result of pax. complaints sometime in 2001 (I can find some indirect references to it, which imply may have been edition of 4th June 2001, but BBC only keeps this years Watchdog's reports online so can't give a URL). The suggested text above would therefore need to be amended to 2001 to be correct (sorry for the original typo), but it definitely was controversial! Bill Martin (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Just like to comment that I dont think it should be in the controversies section without evidence that it did cause a stir beyond one TV program. On another note if it was to be included elsewhere (even with a proper citation) I would still question if a seat fit on one type of aircraft over the hundreds of aircraft over sixty years is really notable. MilborneOne (talk) 12:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
It may seem a minor point, but it really is a deeply antisocial measure to take 1" of the already meagre width of Economy seating (as a one time Wing Forward, I always find shoulder room a problem!). So I definitely want this to be mentioned somewhere - if the consensus is that without the full citation to BBC then it's not provably Controversial (it certainly was in my office, but that's hearsay, of course), it should go in Fleet or Cabins. Bill Martin (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of any further dissent, have added the revised text into 'Cabins'. Bill Martin (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Have also added reverse link to this issue from the B777 page. Bill Martin (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major incident BA038 Boeing 777 - Heathrow Airport

BBC One news pictures - it has landed short of the runway, ending up on the stripes at the start of the runway. Undercarriage has not surprisingly failed, port (left) wing detached, fuselage intact. 3 minor injuries only. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 13:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Some reports are saying the planes engines and electrical systems all failed on approach, leving the crew little option but to land short. Soarhead77 (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
IP users keep changing the 777 fleet from 40 to 39 - I presume as a result of the accident on the BA038 service as they dont appear to have sold one today! Just like to suggest that until we have a citable reference that it has been written-off (we dont know it is not repairable) then it should not be changed. As I have reverted it twice I will leave it to others to decide if it is changed again. MilborneOne (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, the damage looks bad so I can understand why users have tried to reduce the number, but we really don't know whether BA will write it off, they sure do need their 777s. NcSchu(Talk) 19:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm no expert, but I would call it a write off. However as suggested we cannot call it a write off until BA does. Mark83 (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


[User Chris Mills]Still isn't definite yet. They have certainly taken great care when moving it. and have moved it without cutting. I would argue that there are still 40 in the fleet and there is no confirmed hull loss at present.

I would agree. Until BA specifically says they have written it off, it should still count as part of the fleet. Maybe a note saying one out of service. Bthebest (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AAIB report BA038

2 miles in the report means 2 nautical miles (3.7km), not 2 statute miles (3.2km) as the BBC keeps erroneously reporting. Mjroots (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Male Passenger "Controversy"

So, I find it ironic that an editor would remove something and then tell me to bring it to talk...especially because the editor I reverted claimed a logical edit was vandalism, right enough in itself to revert. But in any case, the reason myself and another user removed the "Male Passenger Controversy" is because it just isn't a controversy. It may have been a "controversy" for a week when it was "revealed", and I can understand why it was added at the time, but now it has hardly any importance in BA's history. The fact that the primary source used for the article is a tabloid newspaper, which by definition blows tiny incidences out of proportion, is reason enough to not include it. There's no issue here, this "controversy" just isn't important. NcSchu(Talk) 16:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree - I trimmed the entry down a few months ago as it was bloated with trivia but would agree it is not notable and support its removal. MilborneOne (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, it's a group wide, demeaning, controversial policy, it's well sourced with quotes from BA confirming the policy and from Kidscape attacking the policy. From your comments, you're failing to view things from WP:NPOV. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 17:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Not really, you're the person condemning the policy. It looks like you're looking at this with a very biased view. I think this is a non-issue. You still haven't proved it's a notable controversy, just that it's a "bad" policy in your view. I understand it's true, but I can't for the life of me see how it's important enough to be included. NcSchu(Talk) 18:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
You removed a fully sourced controversial policy from a section of the article entitled Controversies. Please explain how that complies with WP:NPOV. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Because I was looking at it as a neutral reader. I read it, it didn't sound important enough. I already explained the issue of the "source". A tabloid newspaper isn't a reliable source, especially with a "controversy". I've tried looking for other news agencies regarding the matter and have found only a couple of mentions from second-tier news outlets, all of which indicate that BA apologized about the policy. This seems to be only controversial to a few people. You seem to be personally against the policy judging from your labeling of it as "demeaning" and I'm guessing that you want it included because you think the public should know about it. That's not good enough. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the policy, as a matter of fact I happen not to care either way because it just doesn't affect me. I'm looking at this simply as a matter of notability. NcSchu(Talk) 21:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
To say this policy isn't not notable is quite frankly ridiculous. The airline clearly has an official policy assuming that all males are potential peadophiles (and women are not). What if the policy stated children couldn't sit next to blacks or gays or any other group (or even Christians wearing crosses)? Just becasue certain newspapers choose to completely ignore such blatant sex discrimination doesn't make it any less real. Additionally the story is just as important now as it was 2-3 years ago. BA to my knowledge still have the exact same policy in place and have made no real apology for practicing sex discrimination - they've only apologised for any offence caused and in the same statement continued to defend their disgraceful policy.
Why on earth was this well sourced and hugely significant controversy deleted yet the same section contains relatively insignificant issues such as very slight alterations to some film which were made merely to prevent free advertising for the company's biggest competitor? I don't condone censorship but it is prety obvious which is the more serious offence.
Here is a different newspaper source discussing the issue - it was linked from the BA wikipedia article once but (suprise suprise) someone decided to delete it - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/11/09/do0901.xml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakehandsman (talk • contribs)
It is not well sourced! One source is the Daily Mail and the other (although from a respectable paper) was written by Boris Johnson! It IS rediculous though that the Virgin censorship "controversy" is included - I totally agree it's trivia. Mark83 (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The newspaper complies with WP:Reliable source and, as such, it also complies with WP:Notability. You appear to have an overly high opinion of what is and isn't a reliable source, at odds with WP guidelines. Prove that the quotes are false. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 16:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The newspaper complies with WP:Reliable source and, as such, it also complies with WP:Notability. The Telegraph article adds weight to that. Your opinions are at odds with WP guidelines. Do you also think that the quotes in the articles are unreliable and unnotable too ? Please stop attempting to guess my motives - they are irrelevent in the face of WP policies and guidelines. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 16:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your other source is an editorial, which is still not a reliable source - it's all opinion. All companies have policies and people disagree with those policies. This one is a bit more unusual, yes, but still just part of the airline's policy. I'm sure some people can argue that not allowing smoking in airplanes is controversial, but do we mention it? No. I can't distinguish the two. NcSchu(Talk) 00:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Now you're just being silly. Smoking has been scientifically proven to cause cancer (especially in confined spaces). On top of that there is the hugely increased fire risk, and increasing fire risk in areas right next to huge quantities of combustible fuel whilst thousands of feet in the air must be one of the least controversial airline policies ever to anyone with any common sense. You're quite right to suggest many people would like to smoke on planes and might many do kick up a fuss about it, but that's because they are selfish and/or addicted to nicotine. People can choose whether or not to smoke whereas they cannot change their gender or race so freely. This again proves you are you're failing to view things from WP:NPOV. Not only is the seating policy controversial, it is a quite possibly illegal in a number of countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakehandsman (talk • contribs) 02:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
A seating policy can't be illegal, that is "silly". I really don't think you know what NPOV is, because you're much more guilty of this than I am. I have stated, I'm completely neutral to this policy. You, however, seem to be completely opposed to the seating policy and are clearly wanting to include it in the section because of your opinions regarding it. NcSchu(Talk) 02:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I dont think it our place to agree or disasgree with the policy the argument to its inclusion is about its notability and verifiability. Even if it was notable, which in my opinion it is not, it breaks NPOV in not giving the airlines view and none of the sources are from the airline industry or child protection sources. They are also not unique (refer Qantas). You have to measure it against sixty years of the airlines history not a few days in the paper. I also suspect that the cross controversy and James Bond entries could probably be removed for being non-notable now.MilborneOne (talk) 10:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Might be worth removing the James Bond stuff, but I'd say the cross story was hugely notable (though not as notable as the seating issue). Your other points are incorrect - the story does contain BA's point of view though a fuller statement would be better. I've done some research and this is actually a long term on-going issue, covered by other newspapers such as the Times (more than once) right back in 2001! (hardly a few days). Additionally the Times article has a more in depth quote from BA and discusses the policies of rival airlines: http://www.fact.on.ca/news/news0103/ti010316.htm We will still need to cite the Daily mail article as that is the only one covering the view from Kidscape. --Shakehandsman (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps if the seating problem had an article on its own (like the cross issue) and could stand up for scrutiny for verifiability and notability, it could cover other airlines as well. Then all we would need is a one sentence link to that article.MilborneOne (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree with the removal of the James Bond story, that's less notable than the seating issue. I don't know, I'm even less inclined to agree with a full article regarding the seating issue. I think, if we absolutely have to keep it, we need a better source than the daily mail, please, for god's sake let's use a reputable news outlet for sourcing. NcSchu(Talk) 16:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I still think it is not notable, but if it could stand up as an article on its own right it would prove a wider acceptance of notability and test verifiability. MilborneOne (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
True. Are there any references that indicate this is a common policy on other airlines? If so, I could then see a more thorough article dealing with the policy in general. That actually, in my opinion, would become a very interesting article if it was written well and had enough sources. The only foreseeable problem that I can think of is controlling the biases. Even the snippet that we're arguing about on the BA article sounds like bashing, not a neutral commentary. NcSchu(Talk) 19:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've corrected the date to March 2001 and added the link to the Times article on this issue. --Shakehandsman (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This is definitely relevant, verifiable, and deserving of inclusion. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linkspam - Feb 2008

I, along with other editors, have reverted User:213.123.183.232 several times for adding inappropriate NPOV links on this page, and I have added warnings to his/her talk page but the user persists. I've reverted it twice today already and don't want to do it again as I'll be violating the 3RR, so I'd appreciate it if other editors could address the situation. Thanks. NcSchu(Talk) 19:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

A bit tiresome can we get the page protected from IP changes? MilborneOne (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah now there are multiple IP addresses, this is getting a bit excessive. They've certainly been redundantly warned. NcSchu(Talk) 23:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
This is getting silly, can we get the IP blocked / page protected from IP edits for a few days? SempreVolando (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I put the site on the spam blacklist. That should close things down. Stifle (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Too Many Pictures

Is it just me, or do others believe that too many pictures are being used in this article. While I love having pictures displayed appropriately throughout the article, I do not like an "overkill" use. I think the fleet section should have no pictures that would intrude upon the table, as it makes the table very small and difficult to display words in the table. Also, I believe descriptions for thumbnails should be shortened.--Golich17 (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There really aren't that many...the History section has none and a few other places only have a couple, so I think it just need sorting. NcSchu(Talk) 03:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Dont think thery are two many, but as User:NcSchu says perhaps they need moving about. Remember that different readers will see the images and table layouts differently depending on screen resolution and preset image sizes. MilborneOne (talk) 12:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Models section - they should be placed in the table, historic models should be added although I appreciate that the WP rules make this all but impossible. The ethnic tailfin picture should be removed as it's poor - that goes for any pic. There are not enough pics in the other sections. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 09:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
What I am missing in this article are older images of how BA planes used to look like. Maybe one image for each era is enough, but this could be added to the history or livery section. Gryffindor 08:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with all of you. Moving pictures around may be a good idea, so I think I might figure out a way how to move the majority of the photos into different sections while trying not to remove them. However, if more than one aircraft in a certain aircraft family are displayed, the amount of pictures for that aircraft family should be reduced to one photo.--Golich17 (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ryanair

the first line states that ba is soon to be aquired by ryanair, this is rubbish and i can't find the reference in the edit page. someone please delete this dirty trick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.159.120 (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken, that was in a vandalism edit but it was reverted some time ago. You might need to delete your web browser's cache to see the current page. NcSchu(Talk) 18:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Refs & reflist

I've restored a reference that was deleted elsewhere, causing an error in the reflist. If you are deleting text including a full reference, please check whether or not that ref is used elsewhere, and move the full reference in necessary. I've also changed the reflist to a scrollable one. Mjroots (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BA museum

I can't really tell, is the British Airways Archive and Museum Collection mentioned in this article at all? If not, this should definetly be put in with a small paragraph, it's really worth it. Gryffindor 08:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)