Jump to content

Talk:Qantas

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Life200BC (talk | contribs) at 10:36, 31 March 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Former featured article candidateQantas is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 4, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted

Grounding re 2011 Qantas trade union disputes

The section on industrial action here seems to be rather biased in favour of Qantas management.

[1] Qantas is painted as an airline with declining profits which is only kept "afloat" (should be "aloft") by a few routes. This neglects the fact that prior to the grounding, Qantas' profits had steadily improved since the GFC. Qantas' profits are projected to go down in 2011/12, but by almost exactly the same amount as their grounding has cost the airline and even so it is still operating at a profit. [2] The workers' wishes seem to be painted as unreasonable by notes about their 'demands' and the addition of talk about bonuses and perks. One could more easily, simply and accurately note that workers at current levels stand to see a decline in real wages and don't see this as acceptable (wage rises and CPI are both given in the article anyhow). [3] Concerns over losing the Australian character of the airline - and particularly Australian jobs being outsourced - were also at the heart of the dispute, but this isn't mentioned even in this short section.

The extreme nature of Qantas' grounding, allegations that it had been pre-prepared and was implemented cynically and the immediate context (the Qantas AGM, Joyce's bonus) could easily be included in this section as well, although since there is a whole page on the IR dispute, this probably isn't necessary. In any case, making the selection of facts presented in this section more neutral is needed. 

 Mxmlitvinov (talk) 06:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We currently have this event mentioned in 2 places on the page. Under "Company affairs and identity" at Qantas#Labour row grounding and under "Airline incidents" at Qantas#2011 industrial unrest and grounding of fleet. Just FYI. The 2nd mention was AFAIK put in after the other, but is a better update IMHO. 220.101.30 talk\edits (aka 220.101) 19:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read page 5259 of hansard federal parliment of australia records http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/dailys/ds230811.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malbeare (talk • contribs) 09:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qantas Frequent Flyer section

I noticed that the frequent flyer section really reads like a travel guide or advertisement and it goes into too much detail about the benefits of certain levels of the program. I suggest we delete the table and just summarize the stuff that was in it. In my opinion the whole section should be viewable without having to scroll up and down the page. —Compdude123 (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acronym vs. initialism

There has been a recent discrepancy among many editors as to whether QANTAS is an acronym or an initialism. As per Wiktionary, an initialism is “A term formed from the initial letter or letters of several words or parts of words, but which is itself pronounced letter by letter”, while an acronym is “An abbreviation formed by (usually initial) letters taken from a word or series of words, that is itself pronounced as a word, such as RAM, radar, or scuba; sometimes contrasted with initialism”. That said, QANTAS is clearly an acronym. I therefore apologise for my reverts.--Jetstreamer (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does QANTAS stand for?

QANTAS' new meaning stands for:

Queens And Nomads Together Australia Survives — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.152.243 (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the talk page guidelines. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject or for posting snarky comments like you just did. Rather it is for discussing improvements to the article. —Compdude123 03:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History of QANTAS

I have merged the history of qantas article with the main article as the history section required expansion and a separate article had all the details needed for the main article. Printpost (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of that info was split off this article twenty months ago because this article was getting too big, so I have reverted the edit. YSSYguy (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The history section in this article still requires expansion. Take United Airlines#History and British Airways#History as guides; both of these articles have history sub-articles. —Compdude123 19:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unaccompanied child policy

An addition has been made under this heading describing the recently highlighted policy of moving men away from unaccompanied children as Reverse discrimination. Firstly, it's simply not reverse discrimination. It's just discrimination, if anything. (Or maybe just plain dumb.) Secondly, under a heading like that we should be describing the whole policy on unaccompanied children (how the airline manages them overall, etc), not just a recent drama. I have removed the entry. Happy to see something better worded and titled included in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, removing the entire paragraph just because you disagree with one adjective ("reverse") in it is not constructive and may be interpreted as WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
Banning men from seats next to unaccompanied children on flights is a case of reverse discrimination because
a. this is a gender issue (undisputable) and since men have been traditionally the dominant sex (undisputable fact) and reverse discrimination is defined as "against members of a dominant or majority group" (see lead), discriminating these male passengers is reverse discrimination, not just discrimination.
b. the term has also been used explicitly in one of the cited articles "I hate to say this but it is a sign of that reverse discrimination that occasionally exists out there," he said.
PS: Just saw that there is actually already a section concerning the matter: Sex discrimination controversy. I will add contents there, did not see it before. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove the entire paragraph just because I disagreed with one adjective. One of the most frustrating problems I find in conversation on Wikipedia is when I make two distinct points in a post, and someone replies as if I had made only one. That you argue in that manner suggests that we have a real comprehension problem here. And I still say that it's not a case of reverse discrimination. That one writer wrongly says so doesn't make it so. HiLo48 (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Care to address my argumentation above? You also undid the entire edit at reverse discrimination. I will reinstate the material one more time. If you keep on reverting, I am going to ANI over it. It is difficult to see that your reverts are done in good faith. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're clearly in no mood to discuss right now. Maybe later. HiLo48 (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, calm down. I don't see why this has to be a big deal. Take a break. Personally I think that even having a section on sex discrimination controversy is just like focusing on a minor disagreement. Don't turn this article into another Ryanair, where every little controversy is covered down to the finest detail. —Compdude123 19:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

787 cancellation?

Heads up: Qantas says it will cancel its firm order for 35 Boeing 787-9 aircraft, representing an $US8.5 billion ($A8.12 billion) reduction in capital expenditure at list prices. [1] --Pete (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qantas Ambassador

I was just wondering whether this article should list the current ambassadors or at least mention that John Travolta is a Qantas ambassador, as he appears in their inflight safety video, I don't believe we need create a whole new section for it, as that would be preposterous, however perhaps adding that to the main introductory paragraph? Suggestions anyone? I can confirm this is true through the Qantas website as it talks about his 'love affair' after discovering Qantas at a young age. Please can we raise this for discussion? Thanks. John.dinsdale (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think including the matter in the introduction adds to the article, and this is not that important to be in the lead section. Maybe elsewhere.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I was thinking, but unless we make a section for 'Key People' there is not much point in creating a whole new section for a few Qantas ambassadors. What do you think? John.dinsdale (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Slogan

There is a new slogan as stated on qantas.com/you. Should we change it? ABXInferno —Preceding undated comment added 10:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a new slogan, the slogan is still The Spirit of Australians. This is just a campaign phrase, that is being used in television commercials and print. I live in Australia, and I know for fact that Qantas still employs The Spirit of Australians on their aircraft livery, logo and documents. This is simply a new campaign.John.dinsdale (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awards Section

This section contains a pretty much useless list. Any thoughts about removing it please? --JetBlast (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this section seems quite pointless. Also, the information is (not surprisingly) well out of date. Delete! - Carbonix (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted LibStar's removal of the logo. It has been here a long long time, he needs to discuss why it shouldn't be here any longer. His personal assessment that it adds "little value" is insufficient. Fry1989 eh? 04:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP is an encyclopaedia, the main corporate logo is fine and those of subsidiaries like jetstar but how exactly does the frequent flyer logo help a reader? LibStar (talk) 07:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These logos are standard practice for our articles about major airlines. I've reinserted both. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 08:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes as said, the logos are standard practice on dozens of airline articles. Clearly we like to illustrate things when we can. If the logo was free content and on Commons, I would be less worried, but when the result of removing the logo is that it will be deleted as an orphan, I feel we need a higher standard of reasoning for it's removal. Right now, there is no sufficient reason. Fry1989 eh? 19:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that we could put the logos and the pictures of Qantas airliners on other articles. Solve the orphan problem nicely. Kinda entertaining to watch the reactions. --19:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Archived references not used in the article

  • "Qantas and IAG to terminate joint business". Centre for Aviation. 6 September 2012. Archived from the original on 6 September 2012.

--Jetstreamer Talk 12:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still call Qantas Airways Limited... QANTAS! :P

Should we put in the intro that it's common name is QANTAS? What about the fact that it's pretty much always stylized as QANTAS? Also, should the name above the infobox be just "QANTAS" on it own? (Ok, I was bored, so what ya gonna do about it hmm!? lol) AnimatedZebra (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anything to support that Qantas in capitals is a common name as appose to standard English with just the Q as a capital? --JetBlast (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the Qantas website almost all uses of the name outside headings are written as Qantas. Its annual report uses Qantas after the title pages. HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It still doesn't support it as being the common name. --JetBlast (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What? What do you want to see? I've just done a search on my city's two major newspapers, The Age and the Herald Sun. Both seem to use Qantas exclusively, not QANTAS. Is that enough? HiLo48 (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i misread your last comment i agree with you --JetBlast (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have tweaked the intro to show the article name Qantas first and the official name in brackets as has been done on other airline articles. Might make it clearer for some of our readers. MilborneOne (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No reference to John Travolta or his 707

As brand ambassador, or as operator of the last Qantas 707 in service, why is there no reference to this? --Orestes1984 (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably with regard to the 90-odd year history of the airline it is not that notable. MilborneOne (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant to the history no, but it should be a footnote under current fleet as it is a Quantas livery and maintained aircraft. 50.90.100.201 (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second oldest in the world

In the intro it says it's the second oldest in the world and links to List of airlines by foundation date. However in the list, I can find two operating airlines, KLM and Avianca, which were established earlier than Qantas, making Qantas the third oldest operating airline.--Quest for Truth (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the article is not important; that page should have its own references backing its content. Just as with any other claim, the fact that Qantas is the second oldest airline worldwide should be properly referenced. I'll mark the statement as unsourced if no supporting sources are present.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing more to say. The claim in this article is impeccably sourced.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An airline founded earlier than Qantas was merged with another airline in 1940. The new airline resulting from this merger was called Avianca. Airbus and Boeing have a habit of saying "Avianca, the second-oldest airline in the world, has ordered some of our planes" when they are blowing their trumpets, so the claim for Avianca being the second-oldest is verified as well. YSSYguy (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would not consider any company's marketing PR as a reliable source of encyclopedic information. --Dmol (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Qantas' stuff is not part of any marketing press release; it has been published in a third-party reliable source.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

734 fleet

Looking at the CASA reference, it shows eight 734s registered to Qantas - as per our table. --Pete (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many news reports have indicated that the entire fleet has been retired from service. http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/02/end-of-an-era-as-qantas-retires-the-737-classic/ Bilbobagginsflyer (talk) 11:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilbobagginsflyer: WP:VERIFY says that an inline citation to a reliable source should be provided for each change.I see no references provided by you, just removal of content.--Jetstreamer Talk 11:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qantas documents

In case this video is discussed in a source, I have it archived WhisperToMe (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B767 phasing out

According to The Daily Mail (and many other news websites), the B767 will be retired by 27 December 2014, earlier than previously announced. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2762273/Final-boarding-call-Where-Qantass-Boeing-767s-die.html Can someone change this on the wiki page, since the page is semi-protected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.27.33.216 (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done • I've cited an industry-related source instead of the provided above.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qantas Flight Numbers attribution

Material from Qantas Flight Numbers was merged to Qantas on 12 May 2006 but no longer constitutes any part of the article. Per WP:MAD#Record authorship and delete history, I am listing the users that contributed to that article. They are: Quaidy (creator; 8 edits from 13:39, 6 May 2006‎ – 03:39, 9 May 2006‎), ScottDavis (2 edits from 14:35, 6 May 2006 – 05:28, 9 May 2006‎), DB (15:30, 6 May 2006‎), Sb617 (3 edits from 13:21, 7 May 2006‎ – 14:14, 9 May 2006), Kungfuadam (merger; 20:21, 12 May 2006). For more information, please see the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 29#Qantas Flight Numbers. Thanks, Tavix | Talk  19:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Qantas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hubs & Secondary Hub Update

information Needs discussion

As far as I can ascertain these need updating however I'm having trouble finding documentation on the hubs, I'd consider that the Qantas hubs are as follows but would like this discuss before it is updated as I can only base this off interactive route maps.

Hubs

Secondary Hubs:

Anzmibu (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion but sources are required.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Qantas skyscrapers in Sydney

From the History section:

In the 1970s a new A$50 million headquarters, consisting of twin skyscrapers, was being built in Sydney and expected to take one city block. The first and largest tower had an expected completion time in 1973.

Do we have any news on this exciting new development? --Pete (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably Suncorp Place. Hack (talk) 04:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Qantas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Qantas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Qantas branding

I think there needs to be a picture of the new Qantas logo and livery. And also the title at the top of the info box says QANTAS, but it's actually Qantas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AWwikipedia (talk • contribs) 07:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of Article and Questionable "facts"

Relative newcomer to Wikipedia editing here... Have a few thoughts about this article. It's a shame this article has had a "cleanup" tag on it since 2014, although having read it I can kind of see why. I'm happy to spend some time on the article, re-writing parts of it and finding sources, although that'd be time wasted if its all just reverted :) Hence putting this out there for to see if there is any strong opinions either way first :)

Article Structure

I've spent some time looking around other airline articles. It seems the Qantas article is a little 'out of sync' in places.

Some possible changes:

  • Rearrange the headings under corporate affairs a little. Logically Headquarters would seem to come before 'Business Trends' which is something in other articles that is lower on the list under 'corporate affairs'
  • Consider moving the 'Promotional Activities' out under its own level 1 heading similar to the Air New Zealand article. Some of their more notable campaigns and marketing initiatives could be expanded upon in this article
  • Consider a 'Corporate Identity' level 1 heading as per American Airlines. The article seems to be missing a logo overview as seems to be common for many other airlines - any particular reason why it shouldn't be added? The content about uniforms could be moved under a corporate identity section as well?
  • Qantas Frequent Flyer. This could perhaps be renamed loyalty, with QFF coming under a sub-heading and some of the other loyalty division initiatives could be expanded upon - such as their acquisition of data analytics firms?
  • Qantas Club. This should perhaps be renamed lounges as per some other airline articles. The Qantas Club is the lowest level of domestic lounge. There is also the domestic business lounge, international business and international first lounges. Some other airline articles break them up, some don't. It's arguably not quite correct to suggest the entire lounge network comes under the banner of the 'Qantas Club', however.
  • Airline Incidents. Add a 'Controversy' level 1 heading as is common in other airline articles and break off the content that is currently in 8.2-8.5 to that heading.

Content

Some observations. Is it just me?

  • The fundamental structural change section seems a little confusing to me. Much like the banner suggests, this doesn't seem to set the broader overview well for activities since 2011. The section starts by referring to 2014 then jumps back to 2011. Statements such as "Qantas is attempting to turn around their international operations" refer to 2011 although the wording doesn't seem quite right given it's now 2017?
  • The inflight entertainment section seems to be a little confusing and doesn't set the scene before jumping into all manner of particulars about the systems?
  • The Qantas Freqent Flyer section seems to be missing some basic points such as the number of members?

Questionable Statements

  • The 'Inflight Entertainment' section has a paragraph on QUBE. This doesn't seem to have a great deal to do with and IFE and seems to be referring to an internal business system. -- Is it relevant for this section?
  • Paragraph 6 of the IFE section refers to Inflight Internet and kind of makes the inference that in flight internet is available. For the most part its definitely not available on Qantas Aircraft[1]. They may have had every intention to in 2007, although 10 years later now they are only starting to trial it again for domestic services, and that trial isn't even happening yet. One of the sources in that paragraph is to a travel blog of sorts that even mentions in that review it didn't actually work and hadn't been activated, an option simply existed for it in the IFE.

Nickw25 (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The codeshare list section seems to have a few questionable statements.
  1. Suggest remove Air NZ: Despite what the reference says Air New Zealand doesn't appear to be a code-share member. Given Qantas operates its own domestic NZ airline and is in a different alliance it certainly doesn't make much sense! There is no mention of any agreement on the Qantas OneWorld Page[2], the Qantas Partner Page[3] or the Air NZ Partner Page[4]
  2. Suggest remove Alliance Airlines: No mention of any partnership on either airlines website. Alliance is working through a partnership with Virgin Australia.[5] It seems there was some kind of partnership back in the 2000's[6] although with no references on either site and doing business with the competition it would appear to be ceased.
  3. Suggest remove Kenya Airways. It seems there was an intention in 2010 [7] although as of 2017 no mention on the Qantas Website or Kenya Airlines Partner list[8]. All searches on the Qantas booking engine to Kenya route via Dubai on Emirates code shares.

Does anyone else have any further info on any of these particulars? --Nickw25 (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.qantas.com/travel/airlines/inflight-communications/global/en
  2. ^ https://www.oneworld.com/member-airlines/qantas
  3. ^ https://www.qantas.com/fflyer/dyn/flying/earning-points-partner-airlines
  4. ^ https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/star-alliance
  5. ^ http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/01/virgin-australia-and-alliance-airlines-call-on-accc-to-reverse-course-and-approve-charter-partnership/
  6. ^ http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/qantas-frequent-flyer/821507-qantas-alliance-airlines-bne-mky.html
  7. ^ http://australianaviation.com.au/2010/10/qantas-to-codeshare-with-kenya-airways/
  8. ^ https://www.kenya-airways.com/about-us/kq-partners/codeshare-partners/en/

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on Qantas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Qantas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Richard Champion dè Crespigny in the Notable People tab

Should I add Richard Champion dè Crespigny in the Notable People tab of Qantas, as he IS the man who safely brought Qantas's first A380, to ground. PratyakshM (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, notable people is for key executives and personnel, not a pilot who landed a plane in a barely notable incident that only involved a single engine failure (like has been done thousands of times before by other pilots.) He has no notability in the running of the company. Canterbury Tail talk 11:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Current fleet size

Which website is a reliable source of fleet size? Reference number 93 94 can’t see the fleet size number.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Qantas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous art table

Hello wikipedia,

Some other pages in wikipedia have got a table regarding the airline's special liveries.[2] I was thinking of adding a table relating Qantas's 5 aircraft with special livery, however there are already a large number of paragraphs on this subject. Is an extra table necessary?

Caturday-Saturday (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

is listing every special livery really encyclopaedic - because if you have a table that is what will happen very quickly and very pedantically.Andrewgprout (talk) 03:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitely not encyclopedic.--Jetstreamer Talk 16:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to move this into talk for discussion by MilborneOne with the comment "looks a bit over the top - images far to big and the section unbalances the whole article per WP:WEIGHT - perhaps take to talk to see if it is noteworthy and id it is could be done better"

The following is a lightly edited version of the livery/logo history section I had added as Old revision of Qantas. I'd rather not lose the work, if possible. I believe that at least six images are required to show the evolution of the livery (1959, 1961, 1971, 1984, 2007, 2016) and earlier ones could be included as well (the livery on VH-EAG, for instance, is a close analog to the early Super Constellation livery, down to the tail logos). I believe the evolution of the livery is appropriate for a section entitled "Livery", but as suggested, have brought it over to talk for noteworthiness, inclusion, and/or possible relocation (perhaps History of Qantas?).

Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I have (in the past) added similar galleries to relevant transportation articles without reversion:
Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History of livery and logos

The Qantas kangaroo logo made its first appearance in 1944, painted on a Liberator to celebrate the renaming of the Indian Ocean Route to "Kangaroo Service". The design was adapted from the design on the reverse side of the contemporary one-penny coin.[1] To better suit its airborne nature, the wings were added to the kangaroo in 1947 by Gert Sellheim[2] and it was painted on the tail of the Lockheed Super Constellations in 1954.[1] These Super Constellations used a predominantly white livery with a red "belt" at the passenger window line.

  • Boeing 707 with red wordmark on white tail and red belt, livery used 1959–1961
    Boeing 707 with red wordmark on white tail and red belt, livery used 1959–1961
  • Boeing 707 with "V-Jet" tail and red belt, livery used 1961–1971
    Boeing 707 with "V-Jet" tail and red belt, livery used 1961–1971
  • Boeing 747 with "Flying Kangaroo" tail and ochre belt, livery used 1971–1984
    Boeing 747 with "Flying Kangaroo" tail and ochre belt, livery used 1971–1984

In 1959, Qantas was the first airline outside the United States to receive the new Boeing 707 jet aircraft,[3] making its inaugural flight from Sydney to San Francisco on 29 July 1959.[1] The aircraft of the initial 707 fleet were painted with white tailfins marked with the red "flying kangaroo" logo and the Qantas wordmark.[1][4] Qantas later purchased the 707-138B variant with turbofan engines in 1961; these were prominently painted with red tailfins marked with the words "V-Jet" ("V" standing for the Latin word vannus, meaning fan).[3][4] In 1998, actor John Travolta acquired one of the 707-138Bs originally delivered to Qantas in 1961, had it repainted in the V-Jet livery in 2002, and donated it to the Historical Aircraft Restoration Society.[5]

To mark the arrival of the new 747 in 1971, the flying kangaroo logo was made the dominant tailfin element and the passenger window "belt" color was changed to ochre.[1][4]

  • Boeing 767 with "Roo" tail and "Spirit of Australia" strapline, livery used 1984–2007
    Boeing 767 with "Roo" tail and "Spirit of Australia" strapline, livery used 1984–2007
  • Airbus A380 with "New Roo" tail, livery used 2007–2016
    Airbus A380 with "New Roo" tail, livery used 2007–2016
  • Boeing 787 with Newson/Houston Group-designed "Silver Roo" tail, livery used 2016–present
    Boeing 787 with Newson/Houston Group-designed "Silver Roo" tail, livery used 2016–present

The livery was updated again in 1984 preceding the launch of Boeing 767 service for Qantas in 1985. The flying kangaroo on the tail lost its wings and the colored "belt" was dropped, but the tailfin color now extended onto the fuselage.[1] Hans Hulsbosch worked on the 1984 logo update, and proposed the strapline "Spirit of Australia", which had previously been used in marketing materials, should be added to the exterior markings.[2]

The next major revision occurred in 2007, bringing a "polished, contoured Flying Kangaroo".[1] The 2007 revision was carried out by Hulsbosch Communications, leading a creative team that included input from Peter Morrissey, Neil Perry, and Marc Newson.[2] The revision also included an exclusive typeface to match the new kangaroo and was first deployed on a 767, ahead of the launch of Airbus 380 service. Qantas Exective General Manager John Borghetti stated "the differences are subtle but distinctive ... our new flying kangaroo is sleeker and more contoured than the current version - a modern take on a design that has stood the test of time."[6][7] The kangaroo's feet were carried forward to avoid the illusion that they had been cut off by the aircraft's wings, and the wing/tail was brought back to give it a more dynamic, in-flight look.[2]

In 2016, a new livery with an updated kangaroo logo and exclusive typography designed by Marc Newson in partnership with Houston Group[8][9] was unveiled on an Airbus A330-300 in preparation for the delivery of the first Boeing 787 for Qantas.[10] According to Newson, a silver band was added "to give a more premium feel" and the typography was "carefully streamlined". The Qantas wordmark was added to the belly to enhance visual recognition from the group.[8] The tail kangaroo was made significantly more abstract, losing its arms and having a simplified head.[11] The winged kangaroo of 1947 was also reapplied to the nose.[12]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g "Qantas livery throughout the ages" (PDF). Qantas Newsroom. Retrieved 8 February 2019.
  2. ^ a b c d "Case Study: Qantas". Hulsbosch. 2007. Retrieved 8 February 2019.
  3. ^ a b "Entering the Jet Age". Qantas. Retrieved 8 February 2019.
  4. ^ a b c "Why V-Jet?". VH-JET#1 & Her Sisters. Retrieved 8 February 2019.
  5. ^ "John Travolta commits to personnal deliver Boeing 707 to HARS". Australian Aviation. December 8, 2017. Retrieved 8 February 2019.
  6. ^ "New Logo Takes Qantas Into the A380 Era" (Press release). Sydney: Qantas Newsroom. 24 July 2007. Archived from the original on 5 August 2007.
  7. ^ Feldhouse, John (July 25, 2007). "The Kangaroo With More Power". Brand New. Retrieved 8 February 2019.
  8. ^ a b "Flying Kangaroo receives an update as Qantas prepares to welcome Dreamliner" (Press release). Qantas Newsroom. 27 October 2016. Retrieved 8 February 2019.
  9. ^ "Projects: Qantas Rebrand". Houston Group. Retrieved 8 February 2019.
  10. ^ Baskas, Harriet (October 31, 2016). "Qantas reveals new logo, livery and Dreamliner interior". USA Today. Retrieved 8 February 2019.
  11. ^ Vit, Armin (October 27, 2016). "Tail You Win, Head You Lose". Brand New. Retrieved 8 February 2019.
  12. ^ "Evolving an icon: Changes to Qantas' livery" (PDF). Qantas Newsroom. October 2016. Retrieved 8 February 2019.
What about creating a stand-alone article? I concur with MilborneOne that this unbalances the article.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Standalone article would be fine as well, but I'm not sure the standard livery history is worth an article on its own. I suggested History of Qantas because the last sub-section of that article is already a logo history, and this would slot in nicely there. Are there official names for the liveries? I suggest the following nicknames for ease of reference:
  • 1959: 'Red Stripe'
  • 1961: 'V-Jet'
  • 1971: 'Flying Roo'
  • 1984: 'Roo'
  • 2007: 'New Roo'
  • 2016: 'Silver Roo'
(Alternatively, the date of first usage could be employed). Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:Mliu92, I dont have a problem with it being in the history airticle it may not survive as a stand-alone. It the same issue with British Airways so I would suggest that could be moved to history as well, United is already in history. MilborneOne (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the suggestion User:MilborneOne! I moved the content into History of Qantas and will do the same for the British Airways livery section. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

747 flypast

747-400ER (VH-OEE) performing a flypast over Sydney at the end of what is likely to be the final commercial flight by a Qantas 747, on 29 March 2020[1]

The above image has been removed, twice. The fist time the edit summary was "QANTAS has not retired the 747. Stop Posting."; I restored with a citation (as seen above), and the edit summary "Restored with source - and you don't need to remove the image if you disagree with the caption"; it was removed again with the edit summary "No need for the image".

That's not how Wikipedia works.

References

  1. ^ "KLM, Qantas Reportedly Flying Final 747 Flights This Weekend". AirlineGeeks.com. 27 March 2020. Retrieved 30 March 2020. VH-OEE is expected to make the fleet's final passenger flight when it departs Santiago, Chile and arrives in Sydney on March 28. Flight QF28 is expected to arrive at 5:50 p.m. local time

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Likely to be" is pure speculation. I suggest removing the image per WP:CRYSTAL.--Jetstreamer Talk 16:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jetstreamer Please cite the part of WP:CRYSTAL that mandates the removal of images; or indeed text such as that as in this example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place, as even notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident." That said, "Likely to be" marks it has not been definite. The caption is at least misleading. If showing a Qantas 747 aircraft is the main intention I suggest changing the caption.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So nothing in WP:CRYSTAL mandates the removal of images; and yet the image has again been removed, citing exactly that page; and we agree that no claim that a "date" is "definite" is made. I also note that WP:CRYSTAL also includes "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about ... whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." and "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Please take everything in what Wikipedia is NOT into consideration here. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and encyclopaedias deal with long standing and well established details - not things that may turn out to be true (this is the main tenor of WP Crystal). The 747 gone idea is possible but far from established. Qantas announced that they were grounding their A380s a month or so ago and they have been flying almost daily to the US over the last week or so. When you read advice in the Wikipedia help pages it is important to realise that the help given is rarely prescriptive, it gives examples of the sort of things that are necessary to buld a sensible reliable encyclopaedia. Please do not expect the answer to be written in black and white and if it does not specifically answer the question you have say "well that is OK then and do it anyway" that is not how it works. Andrewgprout (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've taken "everything in what Wikipedia is NOT into consideration". None of it mandates the removal of an image such as this and none of it mandates the removal of text such as that used in its caption. Would you now like to take into consideration the quotes from WP:CRYSTAL, which I gave above? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source you referenced is not reliable and has been contradicted by many other, more reputable sites. The image isn't really relavent what purpose does it serve, none. It doesn't inform anyone. It would be more fitting for the image, if they had have been retired , which they have not to be placed in the Qantas History Article IMO.--Life200BC (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Qantas&oldid=948315424"