Talk:Monarch Airlines

Average Age Of Fleet

Is anyone on the "peer review" board on this website able to use a calculator. The average age of the fleet based upon the information provided is 19.2 years!!! I have had this edit revoked several times perhaps some smart ass would like to detail their calculation and any further assumptions made to reduce the figure to 14.2 years..... I smell a Rat!

Orders

Orders from Boeing are not made public and should not be added to this listing.

Order now public as per Boeing press release 05:01 ET 18/08/2006.

Deer Lake

Does anyone know why the airport at Deer Lake, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, has a Monarch Airlines desk? There was no-one there when I passed through. Ground Zero | t 15:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Because they have run charter flights into Deer Lake - suggest you put Monarch Airlines and Deer Lake into your favourite search engine MilborneOne 12:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Images

User User:Arpingstone has added a picture of an A320, do we need more than one picture of each type, should the extras be referenced and moved out to commons!. Should one of the A320s be deleted or replaced with an A321 which is missing ? MilborneOne 21:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant info.

I have deleted the following information from the article

• Information on the models - this is a hobbyist thing and has nothing to do with the operations or history of the airline --Russavia 18:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MONARCHAIRLINESLOGO.jpg

Image:MONARCHAIRLINESLOGO.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Incidents and accidents

Have reverted change to earlier version omitting 2001 incident involving A300-605R G-MONS because it is listed as an official incident in the Flight Safety Foundation accidents/incidents database. Besides, according to the incident description, it could easily have developed into something far more serious if circumstances at the time had not been so favourable. Therefore, I am of the opinion it should be included in the article. PussyCat_369 16:52, 22 December 2007 (GMT)

Being featured in the Flight Safety Foundation database does not mean the incident was serious enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedic article. Generally speaking, passengers need to have been injured or the aircraft has to have been in serious danger or have suffered serious damage to be featured here. There are many similar incidents of this kind which have happened to Monarch and other airlines which do not appear here for this reason and including all of these would unnecessarily lengthen all airline articles with minor incidents. This incident has therefore been removed from this page before some months ago (along with another engine failure incident). Please do not keep adding the details until a consensus is reached on this discussion page first. SempreVolando (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Support SempreVolando it is a not in my opinion a notable incident nor does it meet the criteria as detailed above for inclusion. MilborneOne (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Have removed the passage dealing with criticism regarding some of Monarch's past flight routings, on environmental grounds. These are not incidents. If the person who inserted this passage would like it to be included in the article, he/she should add a new, appropriately headed section as well as cite relevant references. Pimpom123 16:55, 17 July 2008 (GMT)

Monarch Scheduled hyperlink

Have removed the hyperlink from the first instance of mentioning Monarch Scheduled in the article as it only linked back to the same article (i.e. Monarch Airlines).

Pimpom123 15:10, 27 December 2007 (GMT)

Die Hard Reference

I know it's not the kinda thing that would be included on the page, but I remember that the flight that crashed onto the runway in the first film was originally going to be a 'Monarch Airways' plane... until they found out that MA was a real airline and they changed it to Windsor... Just thought i'd say :) db1987db (talk) 11:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

757 Being Phased Out?

A couple of 757s seem to be being sent to the scrapyard. Is Monarch phasing out the 757 for good? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.192.145 (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes MilborneOne (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure. One of the cabin crew told me that they were looking for some more 757 to operate in the fleet, probably because all of the three 757's are over 22 years old. --MKY661 (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

This entry screams of either company editing or severe fanboyitis. I would love to clean this article up but I don't have time at present. If anyone can add more reliable sources, clean up the entry, and add some recent (ie: post 07) info data it would be hugely appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.97.97 (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to give more information if you want to tag the whole article. You obviously see something wrong that is not clear to others. The article has 47 citations a lot more than the average airline article, and non appear to be paticularly unreliable as sources. We always welcome additional information but we need some guidance as to why the NPOV tag. MilborneOne (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've had a read through this article and am struggling to understand which aspect you feel warrants the neutrality tag? Sure it's not perfect but it seems reasonably well referenced and nothing stands out too much like a biased POV, there are certainly worse airline articles out there from that perspective. Let us know which bits you think need work. SempreVolando (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed tag from article since no response to reasons behind it. SempreVolando (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Non Standard Layouts

I`ve been on a few Monarch airline flights, and all of the widebody aircraft had layouts I`ve not seen before. The A300 and the A330 both had 3+3+3 (=9 wide) seating, whereas every other A300/A330 we`ve been on has 2+4+2 (=8 wide). In fact now I come to think of it the Monarch 767 had 2+4+2 (=8 wide) whereas every other 767 I`ve been on has 2+3+2 (=7 wide). Surely this should be mentioned in the Monarch airlines page ? --JustinSmith (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it notable? you need to find a reliable reference that Monarch has a unique seating layout and you then need to convince editors here that it is notable enough for the article. MilborneOne (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Monarch are not alone in configuring their aicraft this way; they are common high-denisty configurations used by many charter airlines. For example, Thomas Cook also configure their 767-300s in a 2-4-2 layout and their A330s in a 3-3-3 layout, while typically scheduled airlines use 2-3-2 and 2-4-2 respectively (1 fewer seat across compared with the high-density config). Thomson Airways also have 2-4-2 layouts on their 767s, along with other European charter airlines. There is nothing particularly unique about these configurations so it's not really notable to this article. SempreVolando (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I find it interesting. From the passengers point of view that seat layout effectively makes it a different aircraft..... Therefore it certainly is relevant. Basically the airlines concerned are relying on the ignorance of passengers (not knowing what they`re getting), and I thought Wikipedia was about illuminating the darkness of ignorance..... --JustinSmith (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think SempreVolando explained that it was not unusual or different to many other airlines and remember this is not a travel guide we are not here to explain standard seat layouts. MilborneOne (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

What is your definition of unusual ? I can only say I`ve never been on any other A300/A330 with 9 abreast seating. What is the percentage of A300s/A330s that have 9 abreast seating ? As a point of principle, if it were 1%, would that be defined as "unusual" ? --JustinSmith (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)--JustinSmith (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No need to discuss definitions as consensus at the moment is that it is not notable it is up to the editor wishing to add something to gain consensus by providing some evidence of notability. MilborneOne (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

So do any of the aviation experts out there know what percentage of A300s/A330s are supplied with 9 abreast seating ? --JustinSmith (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry this is not a forum you may want to ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk. MilborneOne (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I hear what you say (or should that be read), but the question is relevant insofar as a small percentage would, in my opinion, define an "unusual layout". If it can be proved that Monarch Airlines planes have an "unusual layout" then surely that should be on the page telling people about Monarch airlines ? --JustinSmith (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have put a question on the Wikipedia Reference Desk, though I`d have thought the people most likely to know the answer to this would be reading this page, or the A300 / A330 page. Do you think the Airbus A300 & A330 Talk pages would be a better place to ask this question ? --JustinSmith (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Monarch new logo.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Monarch new logo.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 10 August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The Naughties

Why on Earth is a section entitled "The Naughties"? Is it meant to be called that? 90.209.11.56 (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 July 2012

Remove Conrad Clifford as CEO in box to right. He left the business some months ago. Replace with Kevin George as the Managing Director of Monarch Airlines.

Remove Richard Mintern as COO in box to right. He left the business a month or so ago.

The CEO and COO posts will not be replaced. Iain Rawlinson retains the Chairmanship of the Group, with Kevin George reporting directly to Iain Rawlinson.

About 80% of Monarch's sectors are Scheduled, not Charter, and so the airline should be described as a "Scheduled" airline in the opening line. This more than 50% scheduled bias has been true for about 10 years!

Sevenmilesup (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Floating Boat (the user formerly known as AndieM) 08:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2014

Monarch's boeing 757-200's are to be retired at the end off the summer period. They are not to be returned to a leasing company as they are not actually leased. RH212 (talk) 10:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2014

Monarch 757's are not leased, they are owned wholly by Monarch Group, Monarch Airlines. Nor are they to be retired by the end of Summer 2014. Source- I have a flight booked to Barcelona with Monarch Airlines in October 2014, ZB278, and had it confirmed and checked with Monarch customer services that the aircraft is scheduled as a Monarch Airlines Boeing 757-200. A seat map matching the current 757's was also provided. I was also told that the 757's are not looked at being retired until the end on this year, possibly into next year. Their customer services are very friendly and will, on request, answer and check - with other members of staff also- any questions you may have, including questions about their fleet of aircraft. I highly recommend that this section of the article to be edited. "To be returned to leasing company at the end of summer 2014" As this is incorrect information. 92.236.219.72 (talk) 00:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sam ^Sing! 08:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2014

Please provide reliable sources that support why this article displays that Monarch 757's are leased and why it says they are going to be returned to the 'lessor' by the end of summer 2014. What lessor? Who's the lessor? ILFC, AerCap etc.? Planespotters.net displays lessors but shows no remarks that the Monarch 757's are leased. I'd check your evidence and give Monarch a call to confirm it since they own the aircraft. You don't ask, you don't get. Or leave an email, try Toby Hillier (Toby.Hillier@Monarch.co.uk) Part of the Economic planning team (Enthusiast days, Monarch A300 retirement flight etc.) He may be able to answer questions regarding the Boeing 757 being leased or when it is due to be retired. The article would look slightly stupid if the 757's went on past the Summer 2014 period with Monarch Airlines! I'd rather it be proved correct than wrong, and I'd also like to know where you got it from in the first place! Thanks Conor010 (talk) 10:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

References added to show the three aircraft are not owned, retirement and return to lessor tagged for reference. MilborneOne (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The Monarch Airlines Annual Report states they will be retired by the end of the year so I have added that as a reference, it also discusses two of the 757s being on operating leases. MilborneOne (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2014

Monarch Airlines ordered 30 Boeing 737 MAX-8's Add into the current fleet section, with 30 orders and - active RH212 (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2014

Add Monarch's Order for 30 Boeing 737 max-8's to the 'current fleet' section 82.27.113.17 (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request
The source cited in the article states they were "finalizing terms and working towards a Purchase Agreement" in July. It gives no date for anticipated delivery, assuming agreement was ever reached, and they are not in the "current fleet" until they have been handed over. - Arjayay (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2014

Add 30x Boeing 737 max-8's to the "current fleet" section of the article

82.27.113.17 (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

 Not done As stated when rejecting your last request, "they are not in the "current fleet" until they have been handed over."
The article already states "In July 2014 the airline announced as part of its fleet replacement plans that it had selected Boeing with the Boeing 737MAX as the preferred bidder for 30 aircraft"
Your first reference starts "30 Boeing 737 MAX 8s, for delivery from Q2 2018" so please come back in 2018, with a source showing they have been delivered. Arjayay (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2014

. 82.27.113.17 (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)