Talk:Kangaroo Route

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 Kangaroo Route is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is not assigned to a WikiProject or workgroup. Please help with your suggestions.
Assessment comments
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.

Contents

[edit] Comments

Comment: Austrian Airlines also flies this route VIE-SIN-MEL and VIE-KUL-SYD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.73.98.91 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-02

Added --kjd 17:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Qatar Airways does not actually fly to Melbourne yet. Thai Airways is listed both in the table and afterwards, and why is only Auckland listed as a Malaysia Airlines destination? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.51.96 (talk • contribs) 2006-04-15

Comment: I suggest Qatar Airways be deleted from the list. They do not actually fly to Melbourne. Objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.37.5 (talk • contribs) 2006-05-15

Comment: Should that footnote thing be added for Gulf Air? Their flights go via Singapore as well as Bahrain. Emirates also has stopovers in Australia (for NZ destinations) and South East asia on the way to Dubai for Australian destinations. Nice is served via Rome. Or have I totally misunderstood the point of the footnote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.37.5 (talk • contribs) 2006-05-15

Comment: Which airport does VN, JL, KE, SQ, MU, TG, CA and Emirates fly to in Moscow? Domodevo or SVO ? KK kap 13:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consistency

Why is London listed as London Heathrow, yet the other cities not by airport names? Other cities in the table have multiple international airports - so I don't understand the distinction for London. The table should be consistent one way or the other. --kjd 17:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] clean-up: any preferences?

This article needs a bit of a clean up as noted by Kjd and anon poster. There are a number of duplications but, more importantly, why do we have both a list and a table? Surely it's much better to have just one. I'd go for the list, I'll change it all soon (when I get a chance, do it yourself if you fancy it). Anyone any preferences for how to format it? Iancaddy 23:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I merged these all into the one table last week. Still needs checking and verifying though. — User:Donama 13:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exact Definition of Kangaroo Route

I'm not sure if United Airlines' Sydney-Los Angeles/San Francisco-London services and Air New Zealand's Auckland-Los Angeles-London flight should be listed here. I've always thought that Kangaroo Route flights are specifically those that go via the Eastern hemisphere. If United is included, then Air Canada, LAN and Aerolineas Argentinas should be too.

-QFlyer 11:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

well LAN and Aerolineas Argentinas and AirNZ are included so why not United(JFK-LAX-SYD/ORD-SFO-SYD)/AirCanada?(YVR-HNL-SYD) Blahx100 04:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Added in united/air canada. Blahx100 05:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
As per my comments below under Definition of Kangaroo Route, these are not Kangaroo Route services and I feel they should be removed from the page. -- Rob.au 13:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
why NOT remove LAN/aerolineas/Air NZ AKL-LAX-LHR then?Blahx100 03:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify my comment - I think ALL the trans-Pacific services should be removed from the page, as they are verifiably (as per the citations in my comment in the other section) not Kangaroo Route services. All services listed via Buenos Aires, Vancouver, Los Angeles, Santiago and Chicago have no claim to be considered Kangaroo Route services and should all be removed. The validity of Johannesburg is also highly doubtful - I'm not aware of South African Airways selling a single fare basis from Australia to Europe (I believe you would have to combine multiple fares, even if they were placed on one ticket), and regular Qantas/British Airways Australia-Europe fares would not permit travel via this routing. The South-East Asian carriers do sell direct fares from Australia to Europe, even if you need to change planes en route. -- Rob.au 14:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The pacific routes are clearly removable. I am alittle cautious over South Africa thou...where do we draw the line between what is acceptable and what is not?--Huaiwei 14:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Although I am of the view that South Africa should not be included, I agree that neither I nor anyone else has yet presented a sufficient case for its removal in the absence of a consensus view. -- Rob.au 15:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
As there has been no further objection, I have removed services operating via Buenos Aires, Vancouver, Los Angeles, Santiago and Chicago. As above, I believe services via Johannesburg and Mauritius should also go, but I have left these there due to lack of consensus. -- Rob.au 03:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Austrian Airlines

Austrian's Routes to Sydney and Melbourne are going be suspended from March 2007 [1])

Where would this go in the table? Nicko6 07:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

added it in Blahx100 06:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of Kangaroo Route

Sorry folks, but this definition of the Kangaroo Route is incorrect.

The term was coined by QANTAS after the war and had NOTHING to do with the number of hops that it took to get from Australia to Britain, or vice-versa. It had EVERYTHING to do with the fact that it was promoting an Australian airline and a service from/to Australia. The flying kangaroo symbol on the tail of the aircraft, and the name "Kangaroo Route", identified it to the world that it was Australian. It has no legitimate connection with any other airline and as far as I can determine the name belongs to QANTAS.

In additon, the term "Kangaroo Route" ONLY applies to the route Between Australia and Britain via Asia and Europe; it does NOT refer to the route across the Pacific Ocean to North America. This was referred to as the "Southern Cross Route", coined by the Australian airline which inaugurated the service and who operated it prior to QANTAS taking it over - British Commonwealth Pacific Airlines (BCPA).

With regards to the "ownership" of the phrase by Qantas, I would love to see any sources supporting this viewpoint?--Huaiwei 15:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
some EVIDENCE for the above please!!!! Blahx100 04:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Kangaroo Route only refers to the Eastern Hemisphere route between Europe and Australia. The Western Hemispehere route to Europe is known as the Southern Cross Route. You need go no further than the Qantas website to see this distinction defined. [2] Kangaroo Route is actually a trade mark owned by Qantas, according to the ATMOSS search tool on the IPAustralia website, listed as Trade Mark 330928. Although it is a trade mark, common usage clearly indicates the expression refers to the entire Australia-Europe Eastern Hemisphere corridor, as operated by any airline. I'm not familar with services to/from New Zealand being included, but obviously the concept is similar, with the air links having similar origins and purpose. Another good source is the ABS 1986 Year Book article on the topic. [3] I have no comment in the 'hops' issue at the moment, other than to say that at the very least, this has a significant enough following in popular culture to rate a mention on the page. If anyone has access to the book Kangaroo Route: The Development of Commercial Flight Between England and Australia ISBN: 0207150869, this might be a helpful additional source for this topic. -- Rob.au 13:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One-aircraft service

I think that we definitely need a separete table for the REAL Kangaroo Route services - that is services between Australia/NZ and Britain with the SAME aircraft, NOT involving a change of planes. This would mean only BA, Virgin, Qantas and Air New Zealand. Only on these airlines the terminus of the flight that you board in Britain is actually in Australia/NZ and vv. FlyerBoy 07:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree Quaidy 23:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Find us any reputable source which actually defines a "real" kangaroo route versus a "fake" one.--Huaiwei 01:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Well how about editing the table so that there are separete colums for "Stopover" and "Change of aircraft"? Since right now the table does not give you the information if you have change planes enroute or not. FlyerBoy 07:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there any compelling reason for this distinction?--Huaiwei 12:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
You don't find it any different when the sign board at Sydney airport says "Singapore" or "London via Singapore"? In my opinion only the latter one is a true Kangaroo route. FlyerBoy 11:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
But that is precisely the point. It is your opinion, which is not what wikipedia is about.--Huaiwei 13:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Well I don't think that there's much of a difference. After all the article already mentions that only 5 airlines operates the route with the same flight numbers throughout - ie no change of planes. Blahx100 08:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It is worth remembering that at one stage, travel between Australia and the UK required travel with no less than three airlines (Qantas, Imperial and Indian Trans Continental Airways), not to mention train travel. [4] [5]. I think the issue of same-plane service is irrelevant to the topic. -- Rob.au 13:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Well why do we need this list of one-airline services then, if travel on the original Kangaroo Route actually required several airlines? I could list SYD-BKK-HEL operated by Qantas+Finnair and that should count then, too. FlyerBoy 23:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
You very well could. The only issue is whether you are interested in adding all connection possibilities, and if you are going to maintain this list.--Huaiwei 12:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I'm not convinced the lists add any value to the article in the first place. I certainly would be open to consideration of removing them entirely. They also seem to be somewhat directory-like in nature. -- Rob.au 15:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your responces. I could also vote for removal of the whole list. FlyerBoy 19:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
And for what reason? I hope its not just because a few are nitpicking on the table and couldnt get what they want?--Huaiwei 22:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Since, as noted earlier, Kangaroo Route doesn't originally mean OZ-Europe on ONE airline and it doesn't mean it nowadays either.FlyerBoy 15:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
To expand on my earlier comment... I just don't see how they add to the content of this encyclopedia article rather than detract from it. The article already clearly describes the nature of the Kangaroo route, as per current status of discussions on this talk page. The issues remain open for discussion/verification regardless of the prescence of the tables. If the purpose of the tables is to provide the reader with information on their choices for travelling the kangaroo route, they should not be there as per wikipedia is not a directory and WP:SPAM. If the purpose of the tables is to illustrate the article, then in my personal opinion, they are complete overkill. Ultimately I think they make the description of the concept less clear than it would be without them, prompting me to suggest we discuss removing them. -- Rob.au 15:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems working on transport-related articles ultimately leads to a dispute over its usefulness to a traveller, which when deemed useful, becomes the primary contention for removal. With all due respect, I consider this line of thought provincial, and quite missing the point. In what way is this same information not useful to academics, researchers, aviation enthusiats, and the general public who are just curious over the big fuss on this one flight route?
The primary purpose of the table is to illustrate the route involved, and to demonstrate the extent of competition on it. You could write endless articles on A airline and B airline being primary competitors on the route, or Airport C and Airport D working hard to grap as much of this transit traffic as possible. But when asked just how the current playing field is like, how would you explain it better then a table? As the original contributor of this table, I must say admit its not the best means of making such an illustration. Is there anyone willing to quit nitpicking, and get down to actually drawing up a map on this route instead, however, because I would consider it an even better illustration method?--Huaiwei 16:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] codesharing

should SAA's codeshare with qantas on JNB-SYD be included?

if so then why not include all of BA's codeshares with Qantas on SIN-PER/MEL/BNE/SYD/FRA or Lufthansa's codeshares with SIA on SIN-PER/SYD/MEL/BNE/FRA/ADL; as well as Virgin's codeshares with SQ for LHR/MAN-SIN-SYD, Air France with Qantas for SIN-SYD, Finnair with QF for SIN-BNE, Air Malta with QF for LHR-SIN-SYD? well you get my point. Blahx100 08:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Seriously should codeshares be included? i think not.Blahx100 03:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Support: I would also prefer to see the codeshares removed - they don't tell us about which airlines actually operate the route - if anything, they're slightly misleading. -- Rob.au 10:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
But then, we would need to see if the codeshares are worth mentioning. e.g. those AF/Air Malta codeshare would be a bit of useless, because they actually don't operate to Oz at all. but for those already operating to Oz on their own, e.g. QF/BA, then it would be fine. Above all, simply say who's really operating it, then voila!--KK kap 07:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I personally don't see why the QF/BA codeshare is worth mentioning on this page. The more codeshares that pop up in the table, the more strongly I hold the view that they should not be included. I feel that including them takes more away from the article than they contribute. As above - I think it reduces clarity for the reader and is slightly misleading. -- Rob.au 07:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Air France

Does anyone have any source for the claim that Air France plans to fly to Oz in 2007?

Block quote

[edit] Move to Kangaroo Route

I would suggest that this article be moved to Kangaroo Route (capitalised R), as the article specifically deals with services to/from Australia, is a term coined in Australia, and is subject to a Qantas trademark [6] and its useage is as a proper noun. But I see the "R" article already redirects here. Just a stickler for detail :) --Russavia 18:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs fixing regarding New Zealand

I don't know whether this term can legitimately be applied to New Zealand as well as Australia, but the article as it stands needs fixing one way or the other. If New Zealand counts, the table column heading shouldn't read "Australian Departure Point(s)", whereas if it doesn't, the New Zealand mentions should be removed. I leave it up to someone more knowledgeable than me about the subject to decide which. -- Vardion 04:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

As can be seen above on this page, there has been much discussion of what can be defined as the Kangaroo Route - however much of it occured before the trade mark status was pointed out. Essentially what it comes back to is this - "Kangaroo Route" is a trade mark that belongs to Qantas [7]. On its website, the airline frequently refers to the Kangaroo Route as services between Australia and the United Kingdom.[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. In the Airline's 2005 Annual Report [14] the airline does refer to starting a new Kangaroo Route service via Hong Kong, though again between Australia and the United Kingdom. There are occasional mentions clearly defining the Kangaroo Route as being services via the Eastern Hemisphere, labelling the Western Hemipshere route as the Southern Cross Route. [15].
All of this said, the term Kangaroo Route is used by the media to refer to more than just Qantas services - and even Qantas themselves have a media release from 2003 titled Qantas statement on Virgin Atlantic becoming 21st carrier on the Kangaroo Route [16], the release goes on to say - "Qantas said today that Virgin Atlantic would become the 21st airline to offer services between the United Kingdom and Australia". That said, the release is talking up the level of competition on the route, and goes on to name airlines that operate via the Western Hemisphere. It is notable that all airlines mentioned did operate from Australia to the United Kingdom at that time. In the case of the European carriers noted in the release, a connecting flight was required from the carrier's European hub through to the United Kingdom.
At the end of the day, there has previously been no consensus on this issue, but perhaps in light of the above it is time again to canvas views on the topic. To my mind, the Kangaroo Route can be defined as:
Airline services between Australia and the United Kingdom operating via the Eastern Hemipshere through Asia.
No-one wants to remove content from Wikipedia lightly, but this definition is very much tighter than the extraordinarily loose definition that currently exists in the article. -- Rob.au 15:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, just to summarise what would have to go under what I'm suggesting, you'd have to remove Air New Zealand, China Airlines, China Southern Airlines and Vietnam Airlines from the airlines table and Guangzhou, Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City from the stopovers table. You'd also need to remove non-UK destinations from the left hand columns and non-Australian destinations from the right hand columns. -- Rob.au 16:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kangaroo Route can ONLY refer to the Qantas route

The trademark name refered to the multistop Qantas flights between Australia and London via Asia. It does not refer to Qantas flights via North America (Southern Cross, Fiesta). It certainly does not refer to other airlines' routes. Vietnam Airlines would be quite surpised to hear that its flight from Melbourne to London (change planes in Ho Chi Minh City overnight, fly Air France from CDG to LHR) is called the 'kangaroo route'.

I propose to Delete all references to non-QANTAS airlines in this article, to make it genuinely about the real Kangaroo Route. Kransky (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You can redefine this all you like based on the marketing muscle of one airline, but what about the fact that the mass media frequently uses the term to refer to non-Qantas operations?--Huaiwei (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Why change?
(a) because it ain't the Kangaroo Route.
(b) other airlines don't call their routes the Kangaroo Route
(c) Even as a misnomor the term has failed to enter the popular lexicon (by the "mass media") to describe the route in the way you describe it.
(d) For reasons previously stated, it is overkill to write lists in the way you have.
(e) the article lacks other more pertinent information about the actual Kangaroo route. No mention is made of the original routing or aircraft that was flown.
(f) We here don't refer to the Kangaroo Route as anything but the Qantas flight of yore. We don't even commonly call the modern-day Qantas flights as the Kangaroo route.
(g) I doubt you Singaporeans refer to intermediary and feeder flights as forming part of the "Kangaroo Route".
Kransky (talk) 12:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh really? Check out [17] for instance. Is Qantas going to sue Singapore Airlines for mentioning its impending deployment of its A380 on the "Kangaroo route between Singapore, Sydney and London."?--Huaiwei (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, suprising. I didn't think Singapore Airlines would use a trademarked name, but if this is what happens then it is reasonable to include it in the article, albeit with a caveat about its misuse. This is not an acknowledgement that Singapore Airline is right to steal another company's brand, no more than my wearing of a sarong qualifies me to be called a Singapore Girl.
My other point still stands - overkill on the lists at the expense of more pertinent and notable content is not desirable. Kransky (talk) 10:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
No, wearing a Sarong will not qualify you to be referred to as a Singapore Girl. Wearing a Sarong Kebaya may up your chances significantly thou. I would have thought you will be more peculiar about technical accuracy considering your attempt to downplay the use of the "trademarked" phrase in wider society beyond Australia. Singapore Airlines is clearly not the only "culprit" in this regard. You can even sue the Singapore government if you wish[18]. Tonnes of publications are clearly using the term in breach of trademark laws, be it the Times[19], the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission[20], and Air Transport World[21]. You could sue the Sydney Morning Herald for insinuating that the "Qantas-owned term" could be shared with British Airways[22], or you could direct your charges against The Age for suggesting an airline like Virgin Atlantic could be mistaken as Qantas to fly that route with that name[23]. Even worse - the suggestion that Middle Eastern carriers are Qantas wannabes too[24]!
Now I could go on and on and on, but I think the point I am trying to put across is plain clear. Kindly do not put forth a highly POV suggestion which may even be considered "provincial", and attempt to suggest it is an established norm the world over. The mass media, and Qantas' allies and competitors freely use that term as well, even in official releases, without giving a single credit to Qantas's "ownership" of that term.
As for the suggestion that the term should refer to UK-Australian flights only, I am a tad more accommodating, given this was actually its traditional meaning. I have thus setup a new section to highlight these flights in their full glory, ahead of those which includes flights to the rest of Europe and Oceania.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
With a busy and fun lifestyle (nothing to do with wearing a sarong), I am not blessed with endless free time to labour over the issue. I am assuming Singapore is party to whatever international agreement on IP that governs the protection of trademarks (aforementioned by a previous correspondent). Nothing POV or 'provincial' about this. It is Singapore Airlines's business if they choose to take a legal and PR risk by appropriating another airline's trademark. And it is the media's own shortcoming if they fail to acknowledge the propriatary source.
But as for adding another section to be 'accomodating', this makes the article worse in my opinion - instead of giving fresh information (history, planes flew, accidents etc) you are effectively rehashing other data from other sources. Kransky (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Huaiwei's assertion that QF competitors freely use the term in commercial terms is totally erroneous, as trademarks do not usually protect a term from being used in a non-commercial sense (such as by government, newspapers, etc), and also does not protect a term from being adopted in general usage to cover a wider spectrum (e.g. hills hoist, victa, etc), but it most definitely DOES stop the term from being used in a commercial sense, and any company stupid enough to do so deserves to feel the wraith of QF's lawyers. --Russavia (talk) 07:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I am mostly inclined to agree with Kransky, although not completely. In my view:
  • The only correct usage of the term "Kangaroo Route" is to refer to Qantas flights between Australia and the United Kingdom
  • There is undoubtedly sufficiently wide misuse of the term both in the media and by other airlines which are not the owners of the trademark - without Qantas, the owner, taking any action - to comfortably say that the term has wider usage. However it must be discussed in this Wikipedia article on this basis - as one of incorrect use.
  • There is no valid claim that meets Wikiepedia verifiability tests that the term "Kangaroo Route" is used or misused (outside of Wikipedia that is) in reference to any service that operates other than between Australia and the United Kingdom via SE Asia. Any such refrences in the article should be deleted.
  • I am highly dubious that including codeshare operations under this term meets WP:V either. I think this is misleading and damaging to the article, and should therefore also be deleted. If it absolutely has to be said, one sentence such as "Other airlines also sell seats on these services via a codeshare arrangement" is more than sufficient in my opinion. See also Wikipedia is not a directory.
  • The copious tables in the article are damaging to the article... far outweighing any possible benefit they have. Having two tables of identical information sorted by airline and by stopover make a bad thing even worse. I am prepared to accept the recently added table under the "United Kingdom-Australia market" heading as a compromise, partly on the basis that in one short table it is far more informative than the other two. The "Routes by airline" sub-heading should be deleted. The two earlier tables that now appear under the "Europe-Oceania market" heading should now quite plainly be deleted. Again, see Wikipedia is not a directory.
--Rob.au (talk) 07:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it an international trademark? just curious. --Vsion 05:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Airline lists

Is it really necessary for a list of airlines competing on the route to appear in both the introduction and the end of the history section? I can't say I'm keen on either as they're going to be edited to death as no-one agrees on where to draw the line, but at the very least we surely don't need the duplication. -- Rob.au (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But we could just list those airlines flying the route directly in the intro, while adding the competitors in the history section. Both details are important, but shouldn't be duplicated. -- Kransky (talk) 06:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Attempting to downplay the role of competitors can be interpreted as a POV move. In the real commercial world out there, it makes little difference which airline actually flies the route direct, and consumers are clearly not exactly selecting Qantas or BA just because they use the same flight number.--Huaiwei (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree with this to an extent (though not to the extent that the article was taken at one stage). People travelling from, say, Sydney to London will just as easily choose a SE-Asia based competitor such as Singapore Airlines even though a plane change is required. Baggage is normally through checked and often enough the second boarding pass will be issued at the initial origin. However I don't think this is the real issue.
The question is - does Kangroo Route refer to an air traffic route or does it refer to a product or service offered by Qantas? To get registered as a trademark would suggest they see it as a product or service and were able to make a case that it wasn't a generic term, but represented something they offered. If you look at the trademark record, you'll see it offers them protection for Class 39 services - ie. travel agency, transport and storage services. My conclusion is that competitors offer a competing product, but Qantas' product is the Kangaroo Route. It's similar in some senses to their CityFlyer product in the domestic market.
You can see a similar (though certainly not identical) situation in some railways... take for example the Glacier Express. You can travel between all the same places on regular rail services and at many stages the Glacier Express hauls regular trains as part of its consist. Those travelling on the titled train are consuming a different product.
This situation suggests competitors should only be something of a footnote. -- Rob.au (talk) 10:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
If you are able to find sources to support your interpretation, than by all means, failing which it is still WP:OR. If Qantas itself can issue a press release[25] saying a competitor like Virgin Atlantic is on the Kangaroo route, and further states that it was the 21st airline at time of writing, what does that imply? This is a statement from the supposed trademark owner itself, mind you!--Huaiwei (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
By all mean mention the competitors (they are mentioned), but it needn't be mentioned twice. Kransky (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The lists may appear repetitive, but I think it is more due to the history section needing expansion.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The existence of a registered trademark makes it not WP:OR - that is the reliable confirmation that it a good or service offered by the trademark owner. Indeed the situation is quite opposite to the assertion that it is a genericised trademark, which is not a claim made anywhere outside of Wikipedia as far as I'm aware... the references given so far don't make any such claim, they are being used in the line of putting forward an argument to support a case... to me, that's the very definition WP:OR... from that guideline... Wikipedia does not publish ... any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position, and later... Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.
That said, I think we're getting distracted here. I'm not against references being made to competitors - I think that is entirely relevant. I just don't want to see multiple lists appearing as this is totally unnecessary and I don't want to see this article be dragged back to the extremely poor situation it was in previously where it was little more than several huge repetitive tables that created an artificial definition of Kangaroo Route that was unique to Wikipedia. In my view - mention that competitors exist and mention a few key competitors as examples - but I strongly hope that we don't return to the attempts to have every single competitor listed as this just isn't what the article should be about. As far as I can see, the references we have assert that it is a product of Qantas and is a product that has evolved with Qantas' history and their history alone. Other airlines may compete with the product, but that's as close as it comes. -- Rob.au (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)