Talk:Portland International Airport

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Portland International Airport 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.
Oregon Portal
This page is part of WikiProject Oregon, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to the U.S. state of Oregon.
To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
PSU stuff & Applegate Trail are the current Collaborations of the week.
Start This page is rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article is rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Moved US Airways to Concourse C, and added United to D, as they are using a gate in D during construction. --Sql4umitch 23:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Updated airline list based on PDX July 2003 monthly traffic report. Removed Mesa Airlines dba United Express; they are nowhere to be found on the record of passenger flights. --Nate Silva 08:25, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

  • Adds it back* Nate, UA XP flights are lumped into "United" as a whole in records of pax flights. WhisperToMe 04:09, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Cool. I see they're even listed in the Monthly Traffic Report now. --Nate Silva 17:35, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Also, isn't there an article on the bad customs treatment ("DePortland")?

Removed destinations: Singapore (via NRT) and London (via ORD). I think the idea is to list cities to which one can fly nonstop. By saying "via whatever" we may as well list every city in the world.

Contents

[edit] Aircraft Type

Should the aircraft types be removed from each Airlines listing? I don't recall seeing any other airports pages using that in the listings. 24.113.22.73 03:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SIN on NWA destinations

Why was Singapore deleted from the list under NWA? Bucs2004 16:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added back much of the history section that was previously deleted; however, I'm unsure whether to also add back the cargo carrier list. For one, it may be out of date. Jason McHuff 06:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted then reinstated SIN

I originally deleted, but then re-added Singapore as a destination under Northwest.

While I think it is a poor policy, after checking the Wikipedia Airports project page, the policy seems to be to list all direct (not necessarily non-stop) cities served. That is, if the airplane continues on to a second (or third, or fourth) destination under the same flight number, it is considered a direct flight, and should be listed. 65.201.149.114 21:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • This has been going back and forth for months...we need a resolution. While I don't think SIN [or Mexico City for that matter] should be listed as a destination, the policy states otherwise. Seems misleading, but that's Wiki.Thedjb 21:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Swan Island Municipal Airport

Here are some sources for starting a proper article to split from this article:

—EncMstr 20:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Future plans

I've updated the future plans section to the best of my ability. I've used information found at the port's website:

24.20.184.141 09:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:WWIN (see the crystal ball part) I think some of the items should be scaled down, and rumors from a bulletein board should be removed. Also why is so much info about Salem's airport here? That info should be at that airport's article, otherwise why not include the commercial flight history of all the airports in Oregon? I hear the Hillsboro airport used to have commercial flights too! Anyway, with some work this could become GA class. Aboutmovies 20:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree...SEA is having the same problem...nonsense conjecture about future service. I'd like to see it deleted all-together. Thedjb 20:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's worth adding to the article, but part of the D Concourse is to be named for Victor G. Atiyeh

[edit] Runway renumber because of magnetic declination change

In August 1996 runways 2/20 became 3/21 because of the changes in the earth's magnetic field. This is apparently not uncommon, but I wanted to see if others thought it worthwhile to add to the article in the history section. I will check back in a week and probably add it at that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.208.28 (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NWA AMS Flight

Wow, there's about 10x the info on this one flight than the rest under the International section. It seems to be a little too wordy, and borders on being a flat out advertisement for NWA/KLM. Should be shortened to include only relevant information. --Resplendent (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

And the whole "too late" for connecting flights looks like WP:OR that should be kept out until a WP:RS is given, and even then limited to prevent WP:UNDUE, if not kept out per WP:WWIN. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This issue created an edit war a month or so ago. I completely agree that the commentary has absolutely no place on this page. It is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to PDX as an airport. These folks (SandyWoods and Rockstar2000) obviously have a beef with NWA their AMS service and don't understand the purpose of Wikipedia. I love that they say "this information needs to be included to maintain integrity of article." Ironic, since it completely denigrates the quality of the article. Thedjb (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
If this continues, should a semi-protect be added? Obviously those re-adding this info haven't been stopped by the consensus of the rest of us. --Resplendent (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protect would be great, but I doubt it would be added as fortunately (for keeping an eye on it)/unfortunately (for semi-protect) they are not trying everyday, 5 times a day. Plus it is not quite vandalism, and semi-protect is more for that. Maybe an article RFC to get a wider consensus that the info should not be included, and then follow that up with a full protection request, as the two users above will be able to bypass a semi protect in a few days as their account(s) are no longer new. But another issue is the likely sockpuppet action of the two users Rockstar2000 and SandyWoods, which could get them blocked (which I believe would be on their IP address so no more edits from their main computer). Aboutmovies (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Computergurus (talk · contribs) added to the situation with this edit with the edit summary:

No good reason why this information needs to be removed. Kudos to person who did research to correct mistaken information in source!!

On the contrary, there are several good reasons:

  1. Not all flights are well synchronized with their connections
  2. Poorly scheduled connecting flights are not an airport issue: they are—at least—an airline issue.
  3. Some passengers welcome a long connection times as a chance to do some sightseeing, etc. especially in an interesting place like Amsterdam.
  4. Given the number of connections from Amsterdam, like 99% are well connected by this flight. The cases of a few African flights is noise.

—EncMstr 19:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] edit war

There seems to be a slow edit war over whether a few destinations have service, typified by a change between Singapore [ends May 30], Tokyo-Narita, Pusan [begins May 31 in place of Singapore])) and Tokyo-Narita.

The page is protected for 30 days. Please take this opportunity to discuss and agree on what the proper contents are. —EncMstr 08:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just had this brought to my attention. But I think, other than the formating, the only problem seems to be whether Pusan/Busan will actually be a NWA destination. I tried to book nonstop flights in the middle of June from PDX to PUS and was told the flight doesn't exist. So as far as I can tell, the anon user is incorrect. NcSchu(Talk) 15:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The governing rules for inclusion/exclusion should be WP:Airport. One-stop direct flights should be listed. Debates on what's direct is OK. Imposing "non-stop only" is not. HkCaGu (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I know, that's not what I was trying to say/do at all...What I was trying to do was demonstrate that no PUS flight exists now or after May 31 except by taking non-direct transfers. But now that I look again I see that despite a plane change, the NWA005 flight number continues from PDX to NRT to PUS. So indeed the flight should be included. NcSchu(Talk) 18:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
But looks like NRT-PUS is a B757. If that's the case PUS should definitely not be included per WP:Airport. An aircraft type change implies a 100% chance of an aircraft change. HkCaGu (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

But what about the flight number? I found it strange that it said 757 too, but the flight numbers were the same. The guidelines under WP:AIR don't seem to solve this issue completely. On one hand there is an aircraft change so the flight shouldn't be added but on the other had there is no change in flight number so it should be added. However I note that in the flight search, it is possible to book just the NRT-PUS leg of NWA005. NcSchu(Talk) 20:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I read the "spirit" of point #5 as "plane change means exclusion". It's what's known as faux-direct--like those Europe/Asia-US Gateway-US Inland. HkCaGu (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no flight from Portland to Singapore. There are flights from Portland to Tokyo (a NWA hub) with connections to Singapore under the same flight number. For whatever motive, audude08 seems to think this should be included as a destination. It's a deliberate attempt to make it look as if there are non-stop flights between PDX and Singapore, which there are not. Including faulty information like this listed makes Wikipedia look bad. To be consistent, I added other direct flights under the same flight number, which meet the same criteria as he's using to include the NWA flight. He deleted those, using twisted and faulty logic to explain it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.109.35 (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Busan does not even operate under same plane.......SIN does! Audude08 (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
There are many Southwest Airlines flights that connect to PDX under the same flight number and on the same plane. Should we include those as well? 71.112.197.7 (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
According to WP:Airport, definitely. They are genuine direct flights. HkCaGu (talk) 05:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
But if it goes through a hub, then no. HkCaGu (talk) 05:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Tokyo-Narita is a hub for NWA, which means that the PDX-NRT-SIN flight that started this whole dispute should not be listed. As for WP:Airport, it should be changed to only allow for non-stop flights. If you look through the major US airport articles, you will be hard pressed to find many passenger flights that aren't non-stop.71.113.112.39 (talk) 10:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with the above statement. People are going to assume the list is of non-stops. --Resplendent (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Throwing out WP:Airport as wikiprojects can really only suggest guidelines, and I think they should work towards a consensus that turns into a formal guideline. Turning to an actual policy, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a travel guide, thus individual destinations should really not even be included. We don't list every book available at a library in an article about a library. Not every person who graduates from a college is listed in the alumni section of an article about that school. A few highlights are given in each case. That said, flights should be limited to non-stop flights, at the most. Anything else would be arbitrary as demonstrated by this discussion and the recent edit war that started this discussion. Limiting flights to non-stop flights provides a clear, bright-line rule that does not require research into plane types, hubs, or flight numbers. If a reader really wants to know where flights go after that, they can contact their travel agent or follow a link to the airport. Aboutmovies (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You can't get a true picture of an airport (and compare one with others) without the destination list. "Not a travel guide" means we're not going to include the frequency, schedule, aircraft type, etc. Which airlines and destinations are served by an airport is very much encyclopedic. And if you do not think listing "direct" flights makes any sense, just think from a perspective of small-town or remote-island airports. HkCaGu (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't that be addressed by saying something like direct flights to Asia, Europe, and all major U.S. hubs? It gives the reader hope that further research will find specifics, provides the general flavor of the airport connectivity, is easy to read, and easy to verify. —EncMstr 19:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Why do we need to compare the airports? Are we ranking them? And are some destinations scored higher on the report card, and does it matter if some of the flights are direct or not? As to not including schedules, did you notice that often there are "service starts on this date" or ends on this date or [seasonal]? That to me is a lot like a schedule. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
That inspires a more direct approach: Comparison of US airport route connectivity.  :-) —EncMstr 19:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Where do we stand on the issue of whether WP:Airport should be modified to recommend only including non-stop flights? I recommend that we do so, for 2 reasons. First, I believe that most readers believe that only non-stop destinations are listed. Secondly, it's practically impossible to know if a direct flight is scheduled on the same aircraft, and whether the passengers are required to deplane during the stop, unless you fly that route regularly or are an employee of the airline in question.WikiBrown (talk) 08:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Now, you are all making me confused here. Why is Portland listed on the Singapore Changi Airport page as a direct flight until June 1 and Singapore not listed here??? Huh??? Audude08 (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Purported BA Flight

"British Airways has decided to start nonstop services to Portland from London's Gatwick airport. The flight will run daily with a Boeing 777 and will begin June 1st."

Seeing as I can find no news release on the PDX website, nor anything on Google or the BA website about this route, I'd say it's false and should be removed. --Resplendent (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And I did remove it. Something that speculative and open to skepticism should not be included unles it has a reliable source. Those guidelines are there for a reason. If nothing else, consider the black eye Wikipedia is taking at places like this: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/3937600 Ipoellet (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] (another) slow motion anon edit war

The article is protected again. There is a slow motion edit war which strongly resembles the previous one. Here are a variety of ideas to resolve it:

  • Delete the airlines and destinations section: it is the most contentious; without it, the article continues to describe the physical facilities well, but less strongly the specific services.
  • Rewrite the section to be more general: the timetable/schedule aspects are specifically not acceptable.
  • Obtain agreement from everyone what the proper contents are and leave them that way.

Probably there are other ideas too. Comments? —EncMstr (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Not too long ago, a user added Busan as a destination from PDX due to the airline restructuring of flight numbers to Asia. I would keep SIN until May 30 since it does not involve a plane change and after that date then it can be removed. Also, WP:AIRPORTS as 2 topics about this issue. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)