![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Lufthansa may be the largest german airline, and it used to be state-owned; but today it's a private enterprise. Does this still make it a "national airline"? -- Nils
What is this man opening the door on the runway thing!? This isn't a serious incident. I think it should be removed. If this kind of thing qualifies you could list hundreds of incidents for all major airlines. newkai 02:56, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There needs to be some mention of destinations in this article and how the airline sticks out from the rest of the competition in this area.
The article says that Lufthansa uses A300B4 models, but I have seen them using only A300-600R models in past few years, so this information is inaccurate. Does anyone know how many B4 and -600 models do they actually use?
I´m sure that Lufthansa recently only operates A300-600 not B4! Dagadt
As the company is celebrating its 50th birthday this year, I think it should be mentioned that 1955 is the year it was founded in. To my knowledge the pre-WWII company was a "different" company bearing the same name.
Miles & More should be merged into the Lufthansa article, and its other participants should have a note about it in their pages. The program isn't noteworthy enough to need its own article. Dbinder 23:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
It says in the first paragraph that Lufthansa means "flying swan". It doesn't. As far as I know, there is a Sanskrit word - "Hamsa", which means swan. In German however, the only meaning I can conceive here is in connection with the Hanseatic League, as is written in the History-section. When I tried to edit this, it was changed back, so maybe someone else needs to make a change.
The name comes as a derivation of the Hanseatic league, a trade group back in the 12-1400's. The intention of the airline was to become an airborne version, hence the name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgw89 ( talk • contribs) 05:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC) what a lot of nonsense, why try and edit something in a language you don't understand and don't speak? ask a native speaker about "Hanse" - just a hint —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.213.8 ( talk) 21:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Can someone clean these up because, though at first they may not appear excessive, im worried about the fleet sections, because somehow I think most pages about the fleet types exist. Thanks for your help DannyM 12:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
It's unclear if the airline was banned from the whole country or just W Berlin after WW2, if anyone has any info please clarify. Propound 05:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Berlin Tegel is definitly not a "focus city" in Lufthansa's route network. The only international routes are BRU and CDG. There are more international routes from Cologne!
I´d say Stuttgart Airport is a secondery hub of Lufthansa! Of course it´s a smaller focus city than Dusseldorf Airport, but it´s a bit larger than Hamburg Airport because of more frequencies! Dagadt
Can anyone give a reference to the BBJ that is in LH's fleet? I have looked for one and can only find the service operated by Privatair on behalf of LH. Which is duly noted in the Privatair entry. skyskraper 14:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
In the history section, it seems to list many, many instances of different planes being purchased. Do all of these purchases need to be listed? I understand certain purchases may be historic, but if so, maybe it should be explained why it is important? (e.g. Allowed flights across Atlantic, etc.) Other examples seem to be listed just for the sake of listing. Gittinsj 01:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)gittinsj
I've deleted Zürich Airport as a Lufthansa hub, for only SWISS uses it as a hub and although it is owned by Lufthansa it is run independently. Moreover, the section about Zürich becoming Lufthansa's third hub is mere speculation, as there have been made no official remarks about Lufthansa dropping the SWISS brand in favor of its own, nor LH offering flights out of ZRH to non-German destinations and therefore being qualified to be called a hub. FMB 17:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I´m fond of Airlines and you can say I´m an expert. So I want to propose Lufthansa a few routes. Unfortunately I don´t know to create a good table! So please help me! The routes are on my Userpage Dagadt. If you have create a table please insert it in the article (new section of course)! Dagadt
The 727 cargo plane lost in 1979 was not part of the LH fleet and - as far as I know - not operated or maintained by LH personnel. I am not sure if it should be listed here.-- Kermecke 06:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
How is Lufthansa "the" German flag carrier? It is privately-owned, the German state has sold all or almost all of its shares. Sure, it carries the German flag on its planes, but so do Air Berlin and dba. There's nothing exclusive about that. Adhominem 09:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm stupid... i thought lufthansa was an african name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.228.88 ( talk) 12:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
There's two lists in the article with accidents/incidents, with many of the items being listed in both of them. As the Incidents lists is more complete I am renaming it to "Accidents and incidents". The Accidents list will be deleted and any information not in the Incidents list will be copied. Ma.rkus.nl ( talk) 20:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
In the current Lufthansa magazine you can see on the route map that the airline serves Rio de Janeiro from Hamburg and Piestany (SLovakia) from Berlin. I never heard about that and you can´t buy these flights on lufthansa.com. Does anyone knows more ybout that? Dagadt ( talk) 17:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
As seen in the documentary, Triumph of the Will, Lufthansa was always the favorite air carrier of Adolf Hitler and, later, was the official airline of the Nazi party (NSDAP).
I do have two concerns with this sentence. First, no sources are given. Second, what other airlines should Hitler and his Nazi henchmen use? British Airways? Even if sources can be found to back up those claims ("always favorite"), that still doesn't tell a thing about the airline and should therefore be deleted from the article. Any second thoughts from someone? Cheers, MikeZ ( talk) 10:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
5 days are over, I just pulled that sentence. Cheers, MikeZ ( talk) 20:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me, or are there too many pictures on the right side of the page. I don't think there should be that many pictures clustered together one after another. Not only does it make the fleet table smaller, it makes the article longer and some pictures, I believe, can be removed or moved. Does anyone have any other thoughts?-- Golich17 ( talk) 20:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
look: [2] -- 92.113.10.111 ( talk) 18:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody object to my expanding on the section regarding cabin service as similar to other airline articles? Neo16287 ( talk) 18:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
According to this English article it is planned to retire the B747-400 in 2010 to 2012. According to the German article some newer B747-400 will receive PTV screens (and probably new first class interior?) and remain in service until most of the ordered A380 and B747-8 are delivered. (I guess that's longer than 2012, or would they really refurbish a plane only for 3 or 4 years more service?) -- 84.115.129.76 ( talk) 23:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Any objections the modification of fleet tables to include seating configuration as similar to other airline articles? Planenut ( talk) 03:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
The fleet table lists business class and economy class seat numers. These do not exist as a fixed value. The cabin is divided by a movable class divider (MCD), thus creating variable sizes of business and economy class cabins. Each row of 6 economy class seats converts to 4 business class seats, using the two outer seats, whereas the middle seat is turned into a small table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.137.87 ( talk) 12:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I wonder - Are the offices of the Lufthansa CEO and executives in Cologne or Frankfurt? WhisperToMe ( talk) 07:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
First, sorry my poor English. I wrote this text, but User:Jasepl not able to accept my poor English and reverting my edit:
Can you help rewriting it? Thanks! -- B767-500 ( talk) 05:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Surely London, Brussels and Milan are not Lufthansa Hubs? There are only a couple of Lufthansa flights on each of them...
I feel this part is not clearly described (the link with the Luftwaffe in the pre-war period, the company serving mainly military ends during the war, the use of forced labor, the classification as a Nazi company by the Allies in 1945 leading to an effective arrest of activities and the liquidation in 1951). I unfortunately have no source but the French and German articles. Maybe adding a subsection "1940s–1950s: war and post-war years" could be an invitation to improvement ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.86.150.40 ( talk) 11:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone identify this Lufthansa aircraft (type) from 1927? Thanks, / Urbourbo ( talk) 18:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I found this corporate page about Lufthansa Group's activities in Africa:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 16:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Luft Hansa and Lufthansa are two separate entities, in much the same way as the old Alitalia and the new Alitalia are. Therefore I propose that this article is split into two, with all info relevant to the previous incarnation of Luft Hansa being moved to that article. Mjroots ( talk) 17:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I think it could be an idea to make an own page for Lufhansa Group/Aviation Group. As I understand Lufthansa German Airlines are a subsidiary. Not a parent company for all the subsidiaries. I would like to do it, but not without an approval. Jortseren ( talk) 10:46, 2 MARS 2011 (UTC)
I do agree as for example Air France-KLM and International Airlines Group have separate pages, so Lufthansa Group needs one, however, if someone were not to approve it and then some people disagree it would cause problems. What suprises me is that no-one has replied to this since 2-March! -- MJLRGS ( talk) 10:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Two places in the Alliances|Commercial section have incomplete dates: "On December 14 Lufthansa and American low-cost airline Jetblue... ...In November, Lufthansa and Austrian..."
Somebody please add the year to these 2 occurences. Casey ( talk) 18:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I have protected the article from change due to an ongoing content dispute, can you come to some consensus on this page please. MilborneOne ( talk) 18:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Noticed wrong wikilink format in Fleet History (Airbus A340-300) is: Airbus A340-300| the | shall be removed. thx and brgds. CeruttiPaolo ( talk) 13:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Lufthansa (31.12.2010).
"Annual Report 2010". Retrieved 4 september 2011. {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
This source may be useful for the Corporate affairs and identity section, in particular subsidiaries.
For example Eurowings is marked as owned 100% by Deutsche Lufhtansa AG over here.
CeruttiPaolo (
talk)
13:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On the fleet table please can you change the link from Airbus A320 Neo to Airbus A320neo. On this section of the A320 page its branded as A320neo not A320 Neo. This is also the same on this link from the Airbus website.
The below airlines also have it like this
Thanks -- JetBlast ( talk) 23:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Do we really need a list of the A380 routes? At the end of the day its just another aircraft. We dont have a list of routes for the 747-400 etc. -- JetBlast ( talk) 13:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the following to Accidents and Incidents/Fatal
( Brunoptsem ( talk) 17:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)) Brunoptsem ( talk) 17:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
LH also have upto 8 of these Combi variants in their fleet, so thats 22 744 and 8 744M, please update list with information accordingly. Mustangmanxxx ( talk) 03:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The Brand history section is a matter of debate. The information present right now has a reference page cited to Lufthansa's page which has no information for the logo design and brand history. As such, the information being transmitted is incorrect. I urge the editors to erase this immediately. DBSSURFER ( talk) 18:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry but the description talks about otto firle and puturzyn. Where does Lufthansa say about that? We are talking about the meaning of the word "Lufthansa" here. Not some crane logo dispute. And yes self-made brand history is yours not mine.
DBSSURFER (
talk)
11:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Please replace reference 25 with archived copy at http://web.archive.org/web/20091010130610/http://konzern.lufthansa.com/en/html/ueber_uns/geschichte/chronik/index.html -- Denniss ( talk) 00:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
On the codeshare section, Turkish and Asiana Airlines should be remnoved from the list as LH and both of the carriers are members Star Alliance and the sentence already mentions "besides Star Alliance members. Snoozlepet ( talk) 16:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Done
MilborneOne (
talk)
21:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi. under Commercial near the bottom, is puts Iberia as Iberia Airlines. The Airline is not called Iberia Airlines its simply called Iberia. Please can this be corrected. Also please can you make the link like this: [[Iberia (airline)|Iberia]] - Thanks -- JetBlast ( talk) 11:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Could someone make the thumbs smaller - the images block parts of the table and make it unreadable. BadaBoom ( talk) 08:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Why does LHT redirect here please? -- JetBlast ( talk) 18:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Really? Where is this officially used? -- FoxyOrange ( talk) 17:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The article states (in the infobox) that Lufthansa was founded in 1926. I think that's not right (even though the company itself claims so). I think we should point out the difference between the history of the brand and the current company of that name. In fact, 1926 is the date when the Lufthansa brand was created. This initial airline was liquidated in 1945. In 1953, a new airline was founded and acquired the Lufthansa trademark in 1954. Yet another airline of that name was formed in 1955, but later lost that naming rights. I think basically, it's the same as with Pan Am Railways: Surely, that company was not founded in 1927. Any thoughts and comments? -- FoxyOrange ( talk) 11:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Please note again (and excuse me if I should have been unable to properly point out the problem in my previous posts) that something needs to be done in any case. Most striking, the current version reads "commenced in 1954". This is just wrong, as the first flight of the "new" Lufthansa took place in 1955. Then, currently this tiny statement "founded in 1926" in the infox is the only part in any Lufthansa-related article which is in accordance with the abovementioned "history of the brand approach". The category reads "founded in 1953". I guess there is no doubt that this is a contradiction. If we just changed the infobox accordingly, nothing else would need to be done, as further down in the article it already reads While Lufthansa claims DLH's history as its own, it is important to note that it is not the legal successor of the company founded in 1926. If, on the other hand, one would chose to go with the "founded in 1926" point of view, a whole lot of other things would need to be changed, too. Most notably, this would mean that Deutsche Luft Hansa was not "disestablished in 1945", and much of it should not be covered in a separate article anymore. It's either all or nothing: If Lufthansa indeed was founded in 1926, the article should contain all pre-1945 accidents and incidents, pre-1945 aircraft types etc. Also, many Wikipedia articles specifically link to the "old Lufthansa". This would also needed to be changed, if one accepted that there was only one company. I hope that by now, I could make my point clear and appreciate your input.-- FoxyOrange ( talk) 16:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I did some research. Here is what I got so far. The source is in German, so I am going to translate the important parts. [Content in square brackets] are my annotations. The Lexikon der Luftfahrt (Encyclopedia of Aviation) [12] has a timeline:
In my opinion, this is already enough to prove my point. Again, I appreciate your thoughts and comments. Of course I am aware that there are many reliable sources which support the "Lufthansa was founded in 1926" counterthesis, but what I listed above are quite hard facts. I am not aware of a single source that claims that today's Lufthansa would be the legal successor of the pre-war company. Best regards-- FoxyOrange ( talk) 11:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
By evaluating this discussion, I have come to the conclusion that there are no objections against the claim that Lufthansa (today's company, i.e. the legal entity, NOT the brand etc.) was founded as Luftag on 6 January 1953. That's why I changed the date in the infobox accordingly (also, WP:BOLD applies, and I have not been aware of a significant number of editors with a contrary opinions: Illraute, I just think I have the better arguments). Every company has exactly one founding date, in Luftag's case this is clearly 1953 (Luftag just wasn't founded in 1926 - nobody has ever claimed so). I tried my best to explain why today's Lufthansa sees itself in the tradition of the earlier company. Feel to find re-word my humble efforts. Best regards-- FoxyOrange ( talk) 23:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
As I don't want to let this drift into an edit war, I will not do any more edits to the infobox for the time being. For a better documentation of my edit, I give you the sources which I think quite well establish my point: Flight International (English), Der Spiegel (German) and Lexikon der Luftfahrt (German). And this is the text I had intended to be displayed as a footnote following the "founded in 1953 statement":-- FoxyOrange ( talk) 07:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
A quick search in a source that I often use mentions that the company was founded in 1926. Notwithstanding, the history of the company is also worth reading. A discussion similar to the one presented in the article is followed. To me, the current company was founded in the mid fifties, although the company traces its roots back to the mid-twenties.-- Jetstreamer Talk 19:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
In the infobox, there is a long list of presumed Lufthansa subsidiaries. Per the respective Wikipedia article, this term defines "a company that is completely or partly owned and partly or wholly controlled by another company that owns more than half of the subsidiary's stock." Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I guess only those companies should be listed, in which Lufthansa indeed holds a majority of the shares?! Surely, JetBlue Airways and Luxair are not considered Lufthansa subsidiaries? Also, Lufthansa Technik and LSG Sky Chefs (and maybe others?) should be listed there, as these are wholly owned (and btw Lufthansa Technik is abbrevated LHT, which seems to solve the above "mystery of the redirect".) Cheers, -- FoxyOrange ( talk) 19:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, A while back I removed some images from the article. All of them where just images of aircraft. Pretty much the same as others in the article. I removed them because they are just placed in the article to take up empty space and being decorative. For users who have a slower internet connection these type of images make the article load slower, not everyone in the world has high speed broadband. Also users with smaller screens, it can mess up how the article is displayed. I really don't see the point in having 8 Lufthansa aircraft all in the same area, they all pretty much look the same. The user WorldTraveller101 reverted this and i have reverted back. Judging from his past activity on 2 accounts he just keeps edit waring and doesn't bother with talk pages. He just keeps reverting to get his own way. So I wanted to see what others thought? Thanks -- JetBlast ( talk) 10:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
There is an ongoing dispute over the founding date of Lufthansa. See RFC-section at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Germany#Request_for_comments_concerning_the_year_Lufthansa_was_founded_in to add your comments. GermanJoe ( talk) 08:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Please change logo from http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/2/27/Lufthansa-Logo.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.179.19.224 ( talk) 01:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, I just went through the "Hijackings" list, flagging all incidents which only have a single reference, an entry at the Aviation Safety Network. As this website is essentially user-generated, other sources to back the ASN info are needed. Unfortunately, I did not succeed in finding anything these incidents in any other sources during a quick search. Therefore, these (minor) hijackings might be regarded non-notable as well. To be fair, I have to add that I believe that I added those to the Lufthansa article myself some time ago.-- FoxyOrange ( talk) 08:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I've just reverted an edit by which the lead statement "Lufthansa is the flag carrier of Germany" was removed. I feel that this should be discussed first (per WP:BRD). According to Wikipedia, a flag carrier "enjoys preferential rights or privileges accorded by the government for international operations." Is this still true? If so, what are Lufthansa's privileges? In any case, please note that the ownership status (whether being state or privately owned) is irrelevant here. Best regards-- FoxyOrange ( talk) 08:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
( edit conflict)The matter is that a reliable source backing up the content is enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Nevert thought about that, but I assume that the source above (I added it to Flag carrier, BTW) has checked all the conditions mentioned.-- Jetstreamer Talk 14:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Lufthansa may be the largest german airline, and it used to be state-owned; but today it's a private enterprise. Does this still make it a "national airline"? -- Nils
What is this man opening the door on the runway thing!? This isn't a serious incident. I think it should be removed. If this kind of thing qualifies you could list hundreds of incidents for all major airlines. newkai 02:56, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There needs to be some mention of destinations in this article and how the airline sticks out from the rest of the competition in this area.
The article says that Lufthansa uses A300B4 models, but I have seen them using only A300-600R models in past few years, so this information is inaccurate. Does anyone know how many B4 and -600 models do they actually use?
I´m sure that Lufthansa recently only operates A300-600 not B4! Dagadt
As the company is celebrating its 50th birthday this year, I think it should be mentioned that 1955 is the year it was founded in. To my knowledge the pre-WWII company was a "different" company bearing the same name.
Miles & More should be merged into the Lufthansa article, and its other participants should have a note about it in their pages. The program isn't noteworthy enough to need its own article. Dbinder 23:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
It says in the first paragraph that Lufthansa means "flying swan". It doesn't. As far as I know, there is a Sanskrit word - "Hamsa", which means swan. In German however, the only meaning I can conceive here is in connection with the Hanseatic League, as is written in the History-section. When I tried to edit this, it was changed back, so maybe someone else needs to make a change.
The name comes as a derivation of the Hanseatic league, a trade group back in the 12-1400's. The intention of the airline was to become an airborne version, hence the name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgw89 ( talk • contribs) 05:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC) what a lot of nonsense, why try and edit something in a language you don't understand and don't speak? ask a native speaker about "Hanse" - just a hint —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.213.8 ( talk) 21:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Can someone clean these up because, though at first they may not appear excessive, im worried about the fleet sections, because somehow I think most pages about the fleet types exist. Thanks for your help DannyM 12:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
It's unclear if the airline was banned from the whole country or just W Berlin after WW2, if anyone has any info please clarify. Propound 05:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Berlin Tegel is definitly not a "focus city" in Lufthansa's route network. The only international routes are BRU and CDG. There are more international routes from Cologne!
I´d say Stuttgart Airport is a secondery hub of Lufthansa! Of course it´s a smaller focus city than Dusseldorf Airport, but it´s a bit larger than Hamburg Airport because of more frequencies! Dagadt
Can anyone give a reference to the BBJ that is in LH's fleet? I have looked for one and can only find the service operated by Privatair on behalf of LH. Which is duly noted in the Privatair entry. skyskraper 14:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
In the history section, it seems to list many, many instances of different planes being purchased. Do all of these purchases need to be listed? I understand certain purchases may be historic, but if so, maybe it should be explained why it is important? (e.g. Allowed flights across Atlantic, etc.) Other examples seem to be listed just for the sake of listing. Gittinsj 01:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)gittinsj
I've deleted Zürich Airport as a Lufthansa hub, for only SWISS uses it as a hub and although it is owned by Lufthansa it is run independently. Moreover, the section about Zürich becoming Lufthansa's third hub is mere speculation, as there have been made no official remarks about Lufthansa dropping the SWISS brand in favor of its own, nor LH offering flights out of ZRH to non-German destinations and therefore being qualified to be called a hub. FMB 17:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I´m fond of Airlines and you can say I´m an expert. So I want to propose Lufthansa a few routes. Unfortunately I don´t know to create a good table! So please help me! The routes are on my Userpage Dagadt. If you have create a table please insert it in the article (new section of course)! Dagadt
The 727 cargo plane lost in 1979 was not part of the LH fleet and - as far as I know - not operated or maintained by LH personnel. I am not sure if it should be listed here.-- Kermecke 06:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
How is Lufthansa "the" German flag carrier? It is privately-owned, the German state has sold all or almost all of its shares. Sure, it carries the German flag on its planes, but so do Air Berlin and dba. There's nothing exclusive about that. Adhominem 09:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm stupid... i thought lufthansa was an african name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.228.88 ( talk) 12:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
There's two lists in the article with accidents/incidents, with many of the items being listed in both of them. As the Incidents lists is more complete I am renaming it to "Accidents and incidents". The Accidents list will be deleted and any information not in the Incidents list will be copied. Ma.rkus.nl ( talk) 20:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
In the current Lufthansa magazine you can see on the route map that the airline serves Rio de Janeiro from Hamburg and Piestany (SLovakia) from Berlin. I never heard about that and you can´t buy these flights on lufthansa.com. Does anyone knows more ybout that? Dagadt ( talk) 17:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
As seen in the documentary, Triumph of the Will, Lufthansa was always the favorite air carrier of Adolf Hitler and, later, was the official airline of the Nazi party (NSDAP).
I do have two concerns with this sentence. First, no sources are given. Second, what other airlines should Hitler and his Nazi henchmen use? British Airways? Even if sources can be found to back up those claims ("always favorite"), that still doesn't tell a thing about the airline and should therefore be deleted from the article. Any second thoughts from someone? Cheers, MikeZ ( talk) 10:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
5 days are over, I just pulled that sentence. Cheers, MikeZ ( talk) 20:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me, or are there too many pictures on the right side of the page. I don't think there should be that many pictures clustered together one after another. Not only does it make the fleet table smaller, it makes the article longer and some pictures, I believe, can be removed or moved. Does anyone have any other thoughts?-- Golich17 ( talk) 20:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
look: [2] -- 92.113.10.111 ( talk) 18:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody object to my expanding on the section regarding cabin service as similar to other airline articles? Neo16287 ( talk) 18:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
According to this English article it is planned to retire the B747-400 in 2010 to 2012. According to the German article some newer B747-400 will receive PTV screens (and probably new first class interior?) and remain in service until most of the ordered A380 and B747-8 are delivered. (I guess that's longer than 2012, or would they really refurbish a plane only for 3 or 4 years more service?) -- 84.115.129.76 ( talk) 23:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Any objections the modification of fleet tables to include seating configuration as similar to other airline articles? Planenut ( talk) 03:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
The fleet table lists business class and economy class seat numers. These do not exist as a fixed value. The cabin is divided by a movable class divider (MCD), thus creating variable sizes of business and economy class cabins. Each row of 6 economy class seats converts to 4 business class seats, using the two outer seats, whereas the middle seat is turned into a small table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.137.87 ( talk) 12:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I wonder - Are the offices of the Lufthansa CEO and executives in Cologne or Frankfurt? WhisperToMe ( talk) 07:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
First, sorry my poor English. I wrote this text, but User:Jasepl not able to accept my poor English and reverting my edit:
Can you help rewriting it? Thanks! -- B767-500 ( talk) 05:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Surely London, Brussels and Milan are not Lufthansa Hubs? There are only a couple of Lufthansa flights on each of them...
I feel this part is not clearly described (the link with the Luftwaffe in the pre-war period, the company serving mainly military ends during the war, the use of forced labor, the classification as a Nazi company by the Allies in 1945 leading to an effective arrest of activities and the liquidation in 1951). I unfortunately have no source but the French and German articles. Maybe adding a subsection "1940s–1950s: war and post-war years" could be an invitation to improvement ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.86.150.40 ( talk) 11:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone identify this Lufthansa aircraft (type) from 1927? Thanks, / Urbourbo ( talk) 18:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I found this corporate page about Lufthansa Group's activities in Africa:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 16:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Luft Hansa and Lufthansa are two separate entities, in much the same way as the old Alitalia and the new Alitalia are. Therefore I propose that this article is split into two, with all info relevant to the previous incarnation of Luft Hansa being moved to that article. Mjroots ( talk) 17:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I think it could be an idea to make an own page for Lufhansa Group/Aviation Group. As I understand Lufthansa German Airlines are a subsidiary. Not a parent company for all the subsidiaries. I would like to do it, but not without an approval. Jortseren ( talk) 10:46, 2 MARS 2011 (UTC)
I do agree as for example Air France-KLM and International Airlines Group have separate pages, so Lufthansa Group needs one, however, if someone were not to approve it and then some people disagree it would cause problems. What suprises me is that no-one has replied to this since 2-March! -- MJLRGS ( talk) 10:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Two places in the Alliances|Commercial section have incomplete dates: "On December 14 Lufthansa and American low-cost airline Jetblue... ...In November, Lufthansa and Austrian..."
Somebody please add the year to these 2 occurences. Casey ( talk) 18:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I have protected the article from change due to an ongoing content dispute, can you come to some consensus on this page please. MilborneOne ( talk) 18:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Noticed wrong wikilink format in Fleet History (Airbus A340-300) is: Airbus A340-300| the | shall be removed. thx and brgds. CeruttiPaolo ( talk) 13:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Lufthansa (31.12.2010).
"Annual Report 2010". Retrieved 4 september 2011. {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
This source may be useful for the Corporate affairs and identity section, in particular subsidiaries.
For example Eurowings is marked as owned 100% by Deutsche Lufhtansa AG over here.
CeruttiPaolo (
talk)
13:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On the fleet table please can you change the link from Airbus A320 Neo to Airbus A320neo. On this section of the A320 page its branded as A320neo not A320 Neo. This is also the same on this link from the Airbus website.
The below airlines also have it like this
Thanks -- JetBlast ( talk) 23:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Do we really need a list of the A380 routes? At the end of the day its just another aircraft. We dont have a list of routes for the 747-400 etc. -- JetBlast ( talk) 13:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the following to Accidents and Incidents/Fatal
( Brunoptsem ( talk) 17:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)) Brunoptsem ( talk) 17:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
LH also have upto 8 of these Combi variants in their fleet, so thats 22 744 and 8 744M, please update list with information accordingly. Mustangmanxxx ( talk) 03:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The Brand history section is a matter of debate. The information present right now has a reference page cited to Lufthansa's page which has no information for the logo design and brand history. As such, the information being transmitted is incorrect. I urge the editors to erase this immediately. DBSSURFER ( talk) 18:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry but the description talks about otto firle and puturzyn. Where does Lufthansa say about that? We are talking about the meaning of the word "Lufthansa" here. Not some crane logo dispute. And yes self-made brand history is yours not mine.
DBSSURFER (
talk)
11:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Please replace reference 25 with archived copy at http://web.archive.org/web/20091010130610/http://konzern.lufthansa.com/en/html/ueber_uns/geschichte/chronik/index.html -- Denniss ( talk) 00:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
On the codeshare section, Turkish and Asiana Airlines should be remnoved from the list as LH and both of the carriers are members Star Alliance and the sentence already mentions "besides Star Alliance members. Snoozlepet ( talk) 16:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Done
MilborneOne (
talk)
21:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi. under Commercial near the bottom, is puts Iberia as Iberia Airlines. The Airline is not called Iberia Airlines its simply called Iberia. Please can this be corrected. Also please can you make the link like this: [[Iberia (airline)|Iberia]] - Thanks -- JetBlast ( talk) 11:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Could someone make the thumbs smaller - the images block parts of the table and make it unreadable. BadaBoom ( talk) 08:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Why does LHT redirect here please? -- JetBlast ( talk) 18:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Really? Where is this officially used? -- FoxyOrange ( talk) 17:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The article states (in the infobox) that Lufthansa was founded in 1926. I think that's not right (even though the company itself claims so). I think we should point out the difference between the history of the brand and the current company of that name. In fact, 1926 is the date when the Lufthansa brand was created. This initial airline was liquidated in 1945. In 1953, a new airline was founded and acquired the Lufthansa trademark in 1954. Yet another airline of that name was formed in 1955, but later lost that naming rights. I think basically, it's the same as with Pan Am Railways: Surely, that company was not founded in 1927. Any thoughts and comments? -- FoxyOrange ( talk) 11:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Please note again (and excuse me if I should have been unable to properly point out the problem in my previous posts) that something needs to be done in any case. Most striking, the current version reads "commenced in 1954". This is just wrong, as the first flight of the "new" Lufthansa took place in 1955. Then, currently this tiny statement "founded in 1926" in the infox is the only part in any Lufthansa-related article which is in accordance with the abovementioned "history of the brand approach". The category reads "founded in 1953". I guess there is no doubt that this is a contradiction. If we just changed the infobox accordingly, nothing else would need to be done, as further down in the article it already reads While Lufthansa claims DLH's history as its own, it is important to note that it is not the legal successor of the company founded in 1926. If, on the other hand, one would chose to go with the "founded in 1926" point of view, a whole lot of other things would need to be changed, too. Most notably, this would mean that Deutsche Luft Hansa was not "disestablished in 1945", and much of it should not be covered in a separate article anymore. It's either all or nothing: If Lufthansa indeed was founded in 1926, the article should contain all pre-1945 accidents and incidents, pre-1945 aircraft types etc. Also, many Wikipedia articles specifically link to the "old Lufthansa". This would also needed to be changed, if one accepted that there was only one company. I hope that by now, I could make my point clear and appreciate your input.-- FoxyOrange ( talk) 16:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I did some research. Here is what I got so far. The source is in German, so I am going to translate the important parts. [Content in square brackets] are my annotations. The Lexikon der Luftfahrt (Encyclopedia of Aviation) [12] has a timeline:
In my opinion, this is already enough to prove my point. Again, I appreciate your thoughts and comments. Of course I am aware that there are many reliable sources which support the "Lufthansa was founded in 1926" counterthesis, but what I listed above are quite hard facts. I am not aware of a single source that claims that today's Lufthansa would be the legal successor of the pre-war company. Best regards-- FoxyOrange ( talk) 11:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
By evaluating this discussion, I have come to the conclusion that there are no objections against the claim that Lufthansa (today's company, i.e. the legal entity, NOT the brand etc.) was founded as Luftag on 6 January 1953. That's why I changed the date in the infobox accordingly (also, WP:BOLD applies, and I have not been aware of a significant number of editors with a contrary opinions: Illraute, I just think I have the better arguments). Every company has exactly one founding date, in Luftag's case this is clearly 1953 (Luftag just wasn't founded in 1926 - nobody has ever claimed so). I tried my best to explain why today's Lufthansa sees itself in the tradition of the earlier company. Feel to find re-word my humble efforts. Best regards-- FoxyOrange ( talk) 23:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
As I don't want to let this drift into an edit war, I will not do any more edits to the infobox for the time being. For a better documentation of my edit, I give you the sources which I think quite well establish my point: Flight International (English), Der Spiegel (German) and Lexikon der Luftfahrt (German). And this is the text I had intended to be displayed as a footnote following the "founded in 1953 statement":-- FoxyOrange ( talk) 07:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
A quick search in a source that I often use mentions that the company was founded in 1926. Notwithstanding, the history of the company is also worth reading. A discussion similar to the one presented in the article is followed. To me, the current company was founded in the mid fifties, although the company traces its roots back to the mid-twenties.-- Jetstreamer Talk 19:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
In the infobox, there is a long list of presumed Lufthansa subsidiaries. Per the respective Wikipedia article, this term defines "a company that is completely or partly owned and partly or wholly controlled by another company that owns more than half of the subsidiary's stock." Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I guess only those companies should be listed, in which Lufthansa indeed holds a majority of the shares?! Surely, JetBlue Airways and Luxair are not considered Lufthansa subsidiaries? Also, Lufthansa Technik and LSG Sky Chefs (and maybe others?) should be listed there, as these are wholly owned (and btw Lufthansa Technik is abbrevated LHT, which seems to solve the above "mystery of the redirect".) Cheers, -- FoxyOrange ( talk) 19:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, A while back I removed some images from the article. All of them where just images of aircraft. Pretty much the same as others in the article. I removed them because they are just placed in the article to take up empty space and being decorative. For users who have a slower internet connection these type of images make the article load slower, not everyone in the world has high speed broadband. Also users with smaller screens, it can mess up how the article is displayed. I really don't see the point in having 8 Lufthansa aircraft all in the same area, they all pretty much look the same. The user WorldTraveller101 reverted this and i have reverted back. Judging from his past activity on 2 accounts he just keeps edit waring and doesn't bother with talk pages. He just keeps reverting to get his own way. So I wanted to see what others thought? Thanks -- JetBlast ( talk) 10:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
There is an ongoing dispute over the founding date of Lufthansa. See RFC-section at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Germany#Request_for_comments_concerning_the_year_Lufthansa_was_founded_in to add your comments. GermanJoe ( talk) 08:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Please change logo from http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/2/27/Lufthansa-Logo.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.179.19.224 ( talk) 01:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, I just went through the "Hijackings" list, flagging all incidents which only have a single reference, an entry at the Aviation Safety Network. As this website is essentially user-generated, other sources to back the ASN info are needed. Unfortunately, I did not succeed in finding anything these incidents in any other sources during a quick search. Therefore, these (minor) hijackings might be regarded non-notable as well. To be fair, I have to add that I believe that I added those to the Lufthansa article myself some time ago.-- FoxyOrange ( talk) 08:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I've just reverted an edit by which the lead statement "Lufthansa is the flag carrier of Germany" was removed. I feel that this should be discussed first (per WP:BRD). According to Wikipedia, a flag carrier "enjoys preferential rights or privileges accorded by the government for international operations." Is this still true? If so, what are Lufthansa's privileges? In any case, please note that the ownership status (whether being state or privately owned) is irrelevant here. Best regards-- FoxyOrange ( talk) 08:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
( edit conflict)The matter is that a reliable source backing up the content is enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Nevert thought about that, but I assume that the source above (I added it to Flag carrier, BTW) has checked all the conditions mentioned.-- Jetstreamer Talk 14:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)