Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sunnya343 (talk | contribs) at 21:36, 20 May 2016 (→Focus cities). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts
WikiProject iconAviation: Airports Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page 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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the airport project.

Aviation
WikiProject
General information
Departments
Project organization
Templates
Sub-projects


Charter Flight Listings

This definitely is one of the most discussed questions within the Airport Editing community and probably has already been discussed in another thread (maybe it was archived too soon?), but how should charter flights be listed? Should they be listed separately or should they be listed along with the regularly scheduled flights? I have browsed around through many airport pages and have noticed that some have separate "Charters" sections and some don't. Thoughts? *AirportUpdater* (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents is that they should be listed along with the other passenger destinations, but with the bolded "Charter:" designation. I say this because they are often just operating out of the same terminals, often operated by many of the same airlines, and in effect are the same 'thing' as a regularly scheduled commercial operation, if we want to get all philosophical about it. Listing only 'public charters' as defined by the FAA is an easy bright line to resolve which charters should go on the list, if that's up for debate. The FAA publishes a regularly updated list of approved public charter prospectuses at https://www.transportation.gov/policy/aviation-policy/licensing/public-charters.
Sorry that above comment was me. Constantly forgetting to sign my posts. Jim0101 (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Scheduled charters can be listed with everything else, as long as they are labeled as such. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 00:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think they should be listed with the normal destinations, it would be to confusing to seperate different kinds of flights from the other when all we need is 1 table. Also, I think these charter tables are not allowed. Lot's have been removed, if you see 1. Please remove it from the page, and if there is an edit war take it to the talk page. 80.189.223.6 (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Valid Redirects

Are these valid or useful redirects, given that the names seem to refer to individual concourses? CrowCaw 00:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Susan B. Anthony International Airport

Martin Luther King Jr. International Airport

@Crow: As long as the redirect name is mentioned somewhere within the article (and properly sourced), it should be just fine. Ralletsretni (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Crow: UPDATE: Per this discussion, apparently the two redirects were made by blocked users with no other contributions...? That's really weird... Ralletsretni (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zagreb International Airport

Hello everyone. There's a dispute regarding the name of this article. Please comment at the article's talk. Thank you.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After a long discussion, it is clear that Croatian government renamed the whole complex of airport after Franjo Tuđman and we also explained a distinction between Zagreb airport's name and operator of Zagreb airport. Accordingly, Zagreb International Airport is the name of operator (Zagreb International Airport Jsc) and regarding this currently topic's name is incorrect because the article is about Zagreb's airport, not about operator of airport (for example, topic's name of Frankfurt's airport isn't Fraport but Frankfurt Airport).
Finally, in accordance with all published material on Talk:Zagreb International Airport under sections 'Government of Croatia officialy renamed airport after Franjo Tuđman' and 'Explanation of name dispute', as a new topic's name is proposed Zagreb Franjo Tuđman Airport, a form of name with city and person features like other similar and neighboring airports in that part of Europe have (for example, Gdańsk Lech Wałęsa Airport, Warsaw Chopin Airport, Budapest Ferenc Liszt International Airport, Václav Havel Airport Prague, Ljubljana Jože Pučnik Airport, Belgrade Nikola Tesla Airport, Henri Coandă International Airport,...). Regards, ZPσβ (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was a reasonable time to take a part in discussion for everyone interested in. All disputes are solved and there is no reasonable objections to renaming anymore. The proposition for article's title is Zagreb Franjo Tuđman Airport. It will be done like it is proposed. ZPσβ (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see consensus in the talk page.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After discussion with Jetstreamer on User talk:Jetstreamer under the section 'ZAG title', we agree that renaming of article's title may be put into procedure and that he won't block intended move. Most of comments on talk page are in favour of renaming. The discussion should be closed now. Accordingly, renaming of article's title will be done. ZPσβ (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all - I have started a discussion regarding the Zagreb airport name at Talk:Zagreb_International_Airport#Requested move 13 April 2016. Please continue any discussion there, and then await closure by an uninvolved party after the listing period is complete. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Malpensa Airport

I divided the passengers destination list of Milan Malpensa Airport into two sections: scheduled and charter. I read the netiquette and this is permitted. Another user still to change the page to previous version, where scheduled and charter were in the same table. How we can stop this user (User:Riktetta) and how we can proceed? --Wind of freedom (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Wind of freedom These charter tables are not really allowed. The remaining have all been removed because they can get really confusing, to be honest, it's just a whole pile of more work for editors to keep track on. If all the destinations are in 1 table, then it is easier to manage and find the destinations. 80.189.223.6 (talk) 06:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

208.104.105.118

This IP: 208.104.105.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which locates to Fort Mill, South Carolina has been adding resumption + end dates for seasonal routes which is obviously against WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT.

The articles that they've been attacking are:

If this behavior continues, administrative attention is definitely encouraged here. I am also suspecting some sort of block evasion here, since their behavior seems to be "Long-term abuse" (ish...).

Hopefully the situation can be remedied sooner than later. Cheers, 172.58.32.161 (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But... you haven't left any message of his/her talk page? Slasher-fun (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This [1] edit was not vandalism. Didn't check the others.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:SSTflyer

This user has been rapidly disambiguating Airport labels in a manner that is disruptive and has been violating previous consensuses and WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. I'm not really sure what to do here since this effects almost all Airport articles. Any thoughts? Thanks. 198.236.17.79 (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To me it's not clear what the consensus has been. I raised the PHX issue and there was only silence, and the thread was archived. HkCaGu (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another user (not the user this the thread is referring to) is has changed Detroit to Detroit-Metro (since Detroit is served by Metro, Willow Run, and Coleman A Young) while the latter two does not have any scheduled passenger service. I have reverted it and messaged the user and I believe Detroit was discussed in the past. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The user has also changed Columbus to Columbus–Port Columbus. I will add any others I notice. The only agreement I see with these changes is that whenever this topic comes up, either no one responds or consesus cannot be achieved. However, it is important to distiguish what level of passenger service necesitates the need for name changes. With this logic, CVG should be changed to Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky because of Lunken, PIT to Pittsburg–International because of Latrobe, and CLE to Cleveland–Hopkins because of Burke. All these smaller airports have scheduled passenger commercial service, but I do not necessarily think they should be changed. Stinger20 (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have already messaged the user to bring his/her changes to the project talk page. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was no need for me to raise discussions regarding my changes, since my changes merely follow consensus established in previous discussions, and raising such proposed changes is unlikely to gain attention from other editors. In my changes (Phoenix to Phoenix–Sky Harbor, Orlando to Orlando–International, and Columbus (OH) to Columbus–Port Columbus), ambiguity exists because the other airports are usually known together with the city name. In my case, in airport destinations lists, Phoenix–Mesa Gateway Airport is usually listed as "Phoenix/Mesa", Orlando Sanford International Airport is usually listed as "Orlando–Sanford", and Rickenbacker International Airport is usually listed as "Columbus–Rickenbacker". In some other cases, there is no need for disambiguation, e.g. there is no need to disambiguate between Frankfurt Airport (now usually listed as "Frankfurt") and Frankfurt–Hahn Airport because in airport destinations lists, HHN is known simply as "Hahn" and not "Frankfurt–Hahn". SSTflyer 01:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there was no consensus in the past discussions regarding the airport changes (all have gone stale and silent). 97.85.118.142 (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Orlando and Phoenix have been discussed in the past but there have been no solutions. Therefore, you CANNOT make mass edits like you did without consensus. Regarding Columbus, this airport absolutely does not need disambiguation as it is the main airport for the city. The city isn't even a major city that has multiple major airports. Midwestern cities such as St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, etc. do not need disambiguation with their major airports. Every city is going to have county airports and other various airports scattered throughout the region and those airports really only have the closest "major" city in their name so people know where that smaller town is located near. If every major airport was listed with another name, things would get very confusing. I still agree that Orlando and Phoenix should just be listed as it should be and Columbus shouldn't even be discussed for any changes. Besides, OH must be included in the name because there are multiple cities that are named Columbus in the US. I have deleted all of the (Columbus-Port Columbus) edits because I think they are the most silly, I will wait on Orlando and Phoenix to be discussed about. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 03:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am merely making changes for compliance with WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT #4. I am sure prior consensus has been established for the usage and standardization of that guideline. Disambiguation may be added using airport names when there are multiple airports serving the same city. I do not have to explicitly start a proposal to change the links for a specific airport when I am only implementing changes based on the guideline. It is only your opinion that Port Columbus International Airport is the main airport for the city when Rickenbacker International Airport is a major airport that sees scheduled intercontinental service to Europe and Asia with aircraft up to the Boeing 747-8. As for Orlando, I have already seen some airports use "Orlando–International" in the {{Airport-dest-list}}; it would be a good idea to standardize this across all airports. I maintain that "Columbus (OH)" for CMH is unusable, since LCK is located in Ohio and primarily serves Columbus, Ohio, creating ambiguity. "Rickenbacker" cannot be used for LCK because Rickenbacker is not a place name. It is possible to keep using "Orlando" for MCO and "Phoenix" for PHX, but "Phoenix/Mesa" would need to be changed to "Mesa" for AZA, and "Orlando–Sanford" changed to "Sanford", to prevent ambiguity. SSTflyer 05:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion should really go to WP:ANI since it is focused on one particular user. However, such airport differentiation changes should be discussed here. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 05:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tamga Airport

An issue I came across whilst creating the UCFA disambiguation page yesterday – what is the correct ICAO code for Tamga Airport? The article states UAFA, but it was listed as UCFA at List of airports by ICAO code: U (I have since amended that). However, googling it, there are loads of hits for sites that says it is UCFA. Can anyone get to the bottom of this? Cheers, Number 57 09:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost definitely UAFA. I didn't see a source from a simple Google search backing up UCFA. I did see multiple for UAFA though. Hope this helps. 2607:FB90:429:C53B:0:46:4A7B:1301 (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The AIP for Kyrgyzstan is available at EAD (but one needs to create a login). It shows only four aerodromes, not including this Tamga place, but all four have ICAO codes like UCxx. So I think it is safe to assume UCFA must be correct. The confusion must come from the effects of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Also please do not take the number of Google hits as a reference; Google is into sales figures, not into facts. Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, is this really an airport? I know the word has different meanings in different variants of English, but for me airfield would be more appropriate. An airport is supposed to offer facilities either for passengers or for cargo, or for both, such as terminals, car and truck parkings, but I can see no such facilities here. Jan olieslagers (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

korean air cargo entry at Tehran Imam Khomeini International Airport article

Some fanboy of iran is trying to pass off korean air cargo as serving the place, fact is that uzbekistan airways cargo is flying for them from navoi, he claims korean air operated two flights to tehran on their own but so what, schedule shows uzbekistan airways the main operator with korean just interlining with them this information is from korean air cargo schedule and was linked to article but he removed it, i have restored it but please keep a check on it. 45.114.127.99 (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando International

I know this topic has been discussed many times beforehand and really, nothing was done to resolve the problem. Recently, one user decided to switch "Orlando" to "Orlando-International" on every airport without discussing here, and their edits were not changed since then. I have a proposal. I have viewed many airport online sites and have seen how they list Orlando International Airport on their departures/arrivals lists and the most common way of listing this airport is as the following: Orlando-MCO or Orlando/MCO. I'm starting to think this is the correct way of listing this airport now once and for all. Anyone agree? Please leave your thoughts and opinions. Thanks. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite firmly against this proposal @*AirportUpdater*:. Airports list Orlando-MCO because they need a shorthand way for the airport. On Wikipedia, we aren't confined to space as such. London's airports are abbreviated as London-Heathrow, London-Gatwick etc. Orlando International is the name of the airport, as is Orlando Sanford, so why should it not stay as Orlando-International and Orlando-Sanford? st170etalk 23:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, first of all, MCO was always listed as "Orlando" since the start of Wikipedia. Then this past March, "Orlando" was switched to "Orlando-International" without consensus. This particular user (which you can see the discussion in this talk page) got a lot of heat for doing this. So, that's the history of MCO. Since then, no one has done anything to change these mass edits, probably due to the large amounts of edits to switch. Now, if you are so strongly against my edits because Orlando "International" is the name, then what about every other airport named "International"? So now we must change Pittsburgh to Pittsburgh-International, Indianapolis to Indianapolis-International, Kansas City to Kansas City-International? No, it doesn't make sense. It is much better to distinguish two airports in the same city by a specific name, not a word such as "International" that every airport has in its name. That's why every airport site lists MCO as "Orlando-MCO" and that's why I changed Wikipedia destination lists to "Orlando-MCO". Because it's the most accurate way to disambiguate MCO and SFB. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to disambiguate (and I agree we should), then full words, not IATA codes are a better method. More importantly, this is something that should have been proposed first, not done as though it were fair accompli. More importantly, I would say there was consensus to use "Orlando-International". That's certainly the way I read the prior discussion. oknazevad (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you think full words are necessary, then why is New York-JFK listed the way its listed? Also, how come all of a sudden everyone's responding FINALLY to my comment? Because I ignited the spark by making all the edits. If I didn't do this, my comment would've never been responded to or discussed about. Last thing, again, there was NEVER a consensus regarding this issue. It was always discussed in the past and then put away. So, I'd say if we are never going to form a consensus, we should just go with what the airports are doing (which we should be doing anyway). *AirportUpdater* (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
JFK has always been the exception, as it's not only widely used locally, but it's well known all over the world. And I would say that the discussion from last year had a consensus, with only one user filibustering because he didn't agree with the consensus because it was a change from past practice. And it wasn't me. But you knew that already. oknazevad (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By tagging some editors it would've been helpful as not everyone watches this talk page. With regards to your earlier comment about international, I'm saying that we should keep the status quo by disambiguating Orlando-International using international. You can't compare Orlando to JFK as JFK is known world wide. Also, I want to note here how Belfast has two airports and one airport is distinguished from the other by being called Belfast-International (as per Belfast International Airport). The same case applies here. I think we should revert back to International. st170etalk 00:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned JFK due to the comment about full words. If you want Orlando to be accompanied by a full word (International), then why not word out JFK (John F. Kennedy)? Paris-CDG words out Charles-de Guelle for example. That's why I mentioned JFK. Anyway, I'm a strong believer in shortening things and not making things too complicated. It seems everyone here wants to word out everything and clobber up the destination lists with additional words that don't have to be there. Another example is Phoenix-Sky Harbor. Why is this worded out? I think if we can shorten things down while not changing the general scope of the destination, it's perfectly fine. "Orlando-MCO" perfectly describes Orlando International Airport and also is a great way to disambiguate the two airports from each other. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Paris-CDG is an international airport that is named after a famous person so I think it is totally appropriate here instead of giving it its full title of Charles de Gaulle. To be quite frank, Wikipedia is not supposed to confuse things with a bunch of abbreviations. We're supposed to use its most well known title. I can't comment on Sky Harbour because I don't know anything about the airport but how else could it be shortened? Keep Wikipedia easy to read, easy to understand and it is therefore less confusing to use International rather than MCO. st170etalk 01:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, looks like CDG is yet another airport that could be discussed forever. This airport is even worse because the amount of destinations that'd need changed is staggering. Right now, they are all listed as "Paris-Charles de Gaulle". Regarding Sky Harbor, I think it should be left alone how it was before the change a month ago (just as "Phoenix"). Regarding MCO, I still can't see International as correct. I've never seen it. Between the 3 ways its been listed (Orlando, Orlando-International, Orlando-MCO), I think Orlando-International is the worst. SFB (Orlando/Sanford) has International in its name as well, using this word is just a bad way of distinguishing two airports. I can't believe no one else can see it. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please bear in mind that a lot of users on Wikipedia are not aware of IATA codes. I am firmly opposed to MCO because abbreviations are not user-friendly. I would like to revert to Orlando-International for the time being and I would be happy to do this. Orlando is not a well known airport in my eyes (compared with the likes of JFK) and using abbreviations here would be totally inappropriate. You have brought up a good point about SFB using the word 'International' in its name, but it is also true that MCO is the primary airport. We need to name the airports in a way that they are easily recognised by the user, and in this case, International seems to be the preferable option at the moment. st170etalk 02:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also just wanted to add that I've checked a few airport pages and they list Orlando-International as just 'Orlando'. Gatwick Airport lists Orlando and Orlando (Sanford) appropriately. Sanford is therefore seen as secondary and in my opinion international should be kept until further consensus is reached. st170etalk 02:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If not JFK, then "New York-Kennedy" would be appropriate for space purposes. The main point there is that "MCO" is not a well known abbreviation to the general readership, unlike JFK, which is widely used in everyday speech. Likewise, outside of air buffs, Charles de Gaulle is rarely refered to as CDG. "Paris-de Gaulle" would be appropriate as a shorter form, but not the IATA code, as is obscure. But still, all this is false equivalency that distracts from the issue that there was consensus for "Orlando-International" to disambiguate from "Orlando-Sanford", and you disagreed and forced an unneeded change against consensus. oknazevad (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you think MCO would confuse the "general readership", then how is International better? Both Orlando International Airport and Orlando Sanford International Airport have that word in their names. So, now I go back to my original thought back in 2015...should it just be "Orlando" if you are worried about how the "general readership" will view these airports.
Also, once again, there has been no consensus regarding this topic. None. Here's the link to the previous discussion: [[2]] As you can see, the discussion ended with no one responding to HkCaGu's question. Please stop repeating yourself about consensus when there's been none. That's why SSTflyer's edits got a lot of people talking because there was no consensus. Now, knowing you guys, probably in your next comment you'll say some foolish phrase such as "you're bullying your way through Wikipedia". No, I am simply editing in the info that the Pros are listing on EVERY airport site for departures/arrivals. Everything is the same except for this Orlando situation and Phoenix. London-Heathrow is the same, London-Gatwick is the same, New York-JFK is the same, Orlando/Sanford is the same, Paris-Charles de Gaulle is the same, etc. Orlando and Phoenix are not the same. If we want to make Wikipedia look like it does on all professional websites, then why shouldn't we do it? *AirportUpdater* (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should stop reacting defensively and try to have a civil discussion with other editors. Actually, at certain airports, London-Heathrow is referred to as London-LHR and Gatwick as London-LGW. Paris is also Paris-CDG to distinguish Paris-Orly (see Dublin Airport's website). We want a name that is readily recognisable and able to distinguish itself easily. MCO doesn't do that, it's unheard of outside of the local area and those who know about the airport. st170etalk 11:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Focus cities

What clearly defines a "focus city"? Some airlines specifically state that an airport is a focus city while others do not. For example Southwest does not. So how was the list of focus cities for Southwest compiled in its article's infobox? Top 10 airports? That seems arbitrary. - ✈Sunnya343✈ (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The currently accepted means for calling a focus city it that it must be listed on the website of the airline in some fashion. For instance, JetBlue lists Boston as a Focus City on its website, so it is listed as this instead of a hub (although by official definitions is a hub). Similar to "Low-Cost" Airlines (If You Can Call Southwest One at this Point), as recently discused with Frontier, Dever is listed as a hub, then a number of cities are inicated as focus cities based on their route map, whihc uses larger dots for its focus cities. As for Southwest, searching their website, the words "focus city" nor "hub" are listed anywehre on the website. Technically, then nothing should be listed, but per discussion about Allegiant Air, it was decided that maintinence bases would be listed as "maintinece bases" on the airlines page, while the airport pages would still retain the "focus city" lable. See Allegiant Air for an example.
Based on Southwest's Website, here are its Maintinence Bases:
Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Oakland, Orlando, Phoenix, and Tampa Bay
The thing, just like many other "Low Cost" carriers is that they try to minimze connections and maximize nonstop flights. I think listing all these cities as focus cities is too much, because Southwest's model is to provide even service to all the countries major markets. I think the best solution to this problem is to only list these maintinence bases. Stinger20 (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be so much easier if Southwest would list their focus cities, but sadly they do not. Stinger20 does make a lot of good points. I don't think Southwest is any different than Frontier for example. They are not "hub and spoke" airlines, but are "point to point" airlines. SW does have a lot of airports where they connect passengers through such as Atlanta, Baltimore, Dallas, Houston, Chicago, Denver, Phoenix and so on. However, many of them have lots of flights simply because a lot of people go to a particular destination. So, as Stinger20 says, I think the 11 maintenance bases listed above should be on Southwest's page and list the airport pages as focus cities, same as Frontier. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Stinger20 and AirportUpdater. I didn't notice Frontier's route map had the bigger and smaller city dots. - ✈Sunnya343✈ (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Former Airlines" (sic) at EWR

I just killed off the entire section. It was getting too long and occupying so much vertical space. It was ridiculously listing CO and US. What's encyclopedic about every former US air carriers having served EWR? What's the point of listing many charter operators or briefly-appeared airlines? And so many items were unsourced. If any former carriers were of any importance, they should be in the history prose, or the notability should reside in the airline's article. HkCaGu (talk) 05:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports&oldid=721294324"