Talk:Qantas: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:26, 16 January 2006

Template:AirlineProject Both G-BNLS and G-BIKF are Ba planes?!

Why is this page not called "QANTAS"? The name is an acronym.
(later..) Oh, I see. QANTAS exist as a redirect which no one uses.

JetConnect has been operating many of the trans-Tasman Qantas flights as well as the domestic NZ service for some time, using 737-300s on the NZ register - many ex-Ansett. Now that JetStar is starting to enter the trans-Tasman market, is JetConnect to be wound down? And should it not be listed as a Qantas subsidiary? rerj in Hobart

Safety

What does the CEO's daughter have to do with the safety of the airline? I think this needs to be rewritten or or removed. WikiDon 04:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's got precisely nothing to do with the safety of the airline; in fact, it's got nothing to do with Qantas. Removed with prejudice. --Robert Merkel 05:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hubs/Focus Cities

How are these determined? LHR is listed as a hub, yet LAX doesn't rate a mention in either. This seems odd as QF flies from LAX to four destinations (AKL, SYD, MEL, BNE), but from LHR to only three (SIN, BKK, HKG). A hub implies spokes, and for QF LHR is only an endpoint - no-one would reasonably connect between QF flights at LHR except for code shares. --kjd 13:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved LHR to be a focus city, because few would connect to different QF flights in London. (Singapore to Hong Kong in 25 hours, anyone?) --kjd 13:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A hub isn't just a city from which services to other cities depart, but also a) where flights connect with other flights and b) where airlines base crews, fleets, maintenance bases etc. QF announced in late 2004 (early 2005?) that they would base crews at LHR. QF Flights also connect with BA and other oneworld partners at LHR. This might be something to think about is deciding whether LHR and LAX are hubs. (Incidentally, I think that the LHR-HKG flights are code shared and operated by BA, - but I don't think that this would make it any less a hub - if it were to be considered one). I think the best way to answer this question is to find out what QF considers to be its hubs. -I'll see if I can do some research on this point. Adz 04:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My only extra comment would be that if a hub is defined as being where you can connect to codeshares/alliance flights, then pretty much every major destination (including LAX) would then be a hub. AFAIK QF has no in-house maintainance base at LHR, I've only ever see their jets parked at BA hangars. --kjd 07:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is Singapore considered a hub for Qantas, then?--Huaiwei 13:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tell them they're dreaming.

I admit, I'm mad about planes.

But could someone please add a photo of any or all of Wunala Dreaming , Nalanji Dreaming and Yananyi Dreaming?

-)

Regards, Ben Aveling 05:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Beautiful planes! I'll have to take a picture of them next time I see them. I actually saw one of them on the weekend, but there was a lot of traffic at the end of the runway and I didn't stop. I took a photograph of the A380 as it overflew Sydney, but I was in the wrong spot, down sun, hidden by trees on Mrs Macquaries Chair and the few shots I could get really suck. And they'd moved it into a hangar by the time I got to the airport. In the meantime, what about using a picture from a press release? --Jumbo 03:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know how to upload pictures but someone with more wiki knowledge can use these links to get pictures of all three dreaming planes;

Wunala Dreaming: http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=VH-OEJ&distinct_entry=true

Nalanji Dreaming: http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=VH-EBU&distinct_entry=true

Yananyi Dreaming: http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=VH-VXB&distinct_entry=true

Regards, Patm 06:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

advertising-speak

"The interior design for the A380 aircraft will provide new levels of comfort for passengers"

"The first flight of the revolutionary new A380 aircraft"

These parts read like an advertising brochure in my mind. Should they be changed?

Jeremyh 06:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I've toned it down somewhat. Enough? --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Firing ?

Why is this here ? Its ridiculously obscure. Do we have a reference to Bachelor of Arts at the top of the British Airways page or Alcoholics Anonymous at the top of the American Airlines page ? Andypasto 11:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is the normal way of referring users to other articles that they might have been looking for. QF is a redirect to the Qantas article. Bachelor of Arts is listed before British Airways on the BA disambig page, and Alcoholics Anonymous is before American Airlines in AA. Feel free to convert QF from a redirect to a disambig and list all meanings there. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New York

In Mid 2005 Qantas annouced it would increase services to Shanghai and Johannesburg and on the 30th of December 2005 Qantas annouced that services to New York would go from 3 per week to 5 per week from early 2006. Looks like somebody has a crystal ball. Wikipedia reports before December on an announcement to be made on December 30!? Anyone know what meaning it's supposed to convey? --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Found the press release from 30 November. Fixed. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

787 Order

Just after the Qantas 787 order was announced, I wrote a paragraph in the 2005 News section about the order. Later, another paragraph about the order was added to the Fleet section. They're mostly redundant, but I'd like some opinion on which one should stay and which should be removed. I personally think a mention obviously belongs in the news section, since this is the biggest QF news in a long time. Should some description of the 787 (similar to the paragraph on the A380 that's already there) be put in the Fleet section instead of info on the order itself?

-QFlyer 06:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The photo of the 787, is that a real plane or a computer generated image? Regards, Ben Aveling 02:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As the 787 does not yet fly it must be computer generated --Denniss 03:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]