![]() | 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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
OK. With the recent FAC nomination I put in for Qantas, I have had some recomendations (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Qantas) I am willing to make most of these changes myself or for anybody willing to help, I would apprechiate it. If I have no response for supports, opposing or anyone willing to help by November the 2nd, I will start making these changes immediatly by myself. I am doing this so Qantas will be a FA one day soon!
Please reply on my talk page as well as here. Aflumpire 22:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Please do not any major edits to Qantas in the next few days while this is a FAC. I have a limited internet connection at work and none at home for a few days. If any major changes do want to be made in the next few days, please place a comment on my disscussion page. I will notify on this page when I have completed the major upgrades.
Aflumpire 22:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:Img cover sept.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 00:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The article mentions Qantas are receiving 787-8 and 787-9, the 787-8 are going straight to Jetstar and shouldn't be marked down for the Qantas fleet. -- Goldwing 5000 ( talk) 12:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
In the last day there has been revisions done by people who suggest that some recent events are notable or not notable to be added to the page. Personally I dont think that events such as the rejected landing (VH-OEJ at LAX) where no serious damage or injury occurred are really worth adding to this page. The other recent incident at Darwin involving 717 VH-NXE however, I think is worthy as the aircraft sustained damage and may or may not still be too damaged to repair (I might be baised as I added this incident to the page!) Please add your opinons here instead of undoing peoples revisions etc.... Andrew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazkal ( talk • contribs) 13:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Somebody has added an asterisk linked to the Airbus A340 page in the middle of the sentence, "Although Qantas did not choose the Boeing 777-200LR, it is rumoured that Qantas is still looking into buying aircraft* capable of flying Sydney-London non-stop." This is Ridiculous.-- Goldwing 5000 ( talk) 06:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC) The Fleet section also says Qantas does have 1 A380 with 20 ordered, they do have 20 ordered but currently don't have one.-- Goldwing 5000 ( talk) 06:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
can this be substantiated or qualified or cited? At the moment it flies (no pun intended) in the face of the linked article. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 18:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
A discussion has been created at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines#Inflation_of_Qantas_fleet_numbers in regards to inflated numbers being used for Qantas (and some other airlines). If you have anything to add to the discussion, please do so at that link. -- Россавиа Диалог 04:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the 8 April incident twice as not particularly notable against the WP:AIRLINE guideline, I could be wrong can the IP user who keeps re-adding it please explain its notability. Thanks MilborneOne ( talk) 11:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The picture entitled "Boeing 747-400 landing at London Heathrow Airport" seems to be a picture of a 747 taking off; given the aircraft's attitude and the partly retracted position of the landing gear. I note that his has been recognised before by the photographer but the wikipedia entry itself hasn't been updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.223.161 ( talk) 09:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I do not feel that the QF30 incident meets the notability criteria for accidents and incidents as per WP:AIRLINES. It was not a hull loss or any serious damage beyond economical repair. Not a single passenger was injured. It certainly pails in comparison to the QF1 runway overrun. There are two other discussions on this very page about similar incidents. We could include the numerous 747-300 incidents that have occurred but we don't. Under this rationale, I have removed this from the page. Mvjs ( talk) 10:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Qantas Flight 30 has an article created. Nachoman-au ( talk) 11:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't just like there was a minor problem with the landing gear but a large chunk of the plane just blew open and debris started flying inside! IT is very serious! They said that some of the ceiling and floor fell in! That is serious! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.252.88 ( talk) 12:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The incident fails both basic notability guidelines and WP:AIRLINES notability guidelines. Despite current media coverage as the event has just occurred, there is no evidence to prove that this event will have long-term notability, which is the real determinant of including such an event in the section. I have requested semi-protection for this article to prevent the edit warring between anon users. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and unless news coverage continues into the future and over and beyond the context of simply this piece of aircraft falling off, there's no reason to mention it in the article as a major incident. There's no indication that this has resulted in hull loss or that this is permanent damage to the aircraft. NcSchu( Talk) 13:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Everyone: I don't have an opinion either way, but I will note that if people keep reverting each other blindly, I'll protect the page, probably to the version you don't like. Work something out here, stop with the "rubbish" comments, and come up with something reasonable. -- barneca ( talk) 13:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. My opinion is that this incident is notable, due to the relative infrequency of in-air incidents and the severity of the damage. There was significant damage to the hull of a major commercial aircraft sustained while in-flight. If it were something simple such as an instrument broke off I would agree that it is not notable, but this was a very serious event that could have been much more catastrophic. I fly 4-6 times a week and enjoy reading about these incidents. I would hate to have this piece of history stripped from Wikipedia. Thoughts? Benace ( talk) 14:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Ths incident, however, should be notable enough to include in the article as an incident...but once everything about this incident is known. -- AEMoreira042281 ( talk) 14:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
How can you call this incident "Serious"? Yes, it was a 2-metre hole, but remember, this is not a Cessna we are talking about, this is a 747. if you look at the photos that show the whole plane, you can barely see the hole. Jackelfive ( talk) 08:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
So are we going to keep it up?I believe still it is ABSOLUTELY worth it. Sparrowman980 ( talk) 05:20, 26 July 2008 (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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
This could really do with a complete re-write/re-org. It is a mishmash of good info, badly structured - it just wanders all over the place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.174.132 ( talk) 15:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
There is no 'u' in Qantas! Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CupO'Shit ( talk • contribs) 07:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, so if Qantas is now a word, not an acronym, why do we pronounce it as if a 'u' existed, as opposed to a hard 'c'? Yes, I realise that the result will be sophomoric, but remember that we pronounce Al Qaeda (or Al Qa'ida, take your pick) with a hard 'c', so why can we not be consistent? (And no, not because "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - that's not a real answer!) David ( talk) 17:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
on the map of destinations it has a spot for North Korea. There is no way Qantas would ever even consider flying there, so this is an error someone please fix it.
I think that an article about how Qantas may be declining its quality (with offshore maintenance of aircraft) should be included. I remember seeing in the news that a Qantas aircraft that was checked by Malaysian Airlines was found to have about 95 defects that the MA engineers had not picked up. I know that the media may be bashing up some articles - I saw an article title regarding the Qantas domestic flight which the landing gear door wouldn't close saying that a Qantas door opened in flight - but hydraulic failures, explosive decompressions don't happen every day and I know that some incidents are only brought to media attention because of the recent incidents but Qantas is definitely beginning to decline in its quality and regarding those safety scares all Qantas says is "There was no safety issue at any time". Wjs13 ( talk) 01:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
On the fleet list, it says that the Airbus A330-300 flies non-domestic routes. However, I've been on-board a recent flight that operates daily to Sydney from Adelaide on the A330. I'm going to modify it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.166.134 ( talk) 08:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I Cant find any A330-300 flights between Melbourne and Perth ony syd-per. Bwhistle ( talk) 01:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Why is there nothing on the recent incidents on Qantas flights, even though they make 15 minutes of Australian news every day? There should be a section added on the recent maintainance issues and emergency landings. -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs 09:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree, there should be a section on media hype given the amount of news theres been recently absolutely minor things, and the absolutely long shot style links between a minor event picked up during routine inspection and major events (such as Alaska Airlines Flight 261) Harvyk ( talk) 07:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Bidgee, I don't think you understand where I'm coming from. I personally couldn't care less if a Qantas plane was delayed for 12 hours, that's is now news, it shouldn't be included in wikipedia, and it shouldn't be a headline in the media either, however the news outlets right now seem to think it is. I don't want to have a listing on every thing that has gone wrong with a Qantas plane over the last few months, as with exception to the QF30 incident, every single other issue is so unbelievably non-newsworthy it's beyond a joke. The important detail is that the newspapers feel we should be told about even the most minor details right now, regardless of the facts. The articles which these newspapers are writing are poorly written, they are often making major mistakes, sometimes even contradicting themselves in the same article, and ensure that emotive words such as "plunged" and "feared for my life" makes it into the headlines. For a period there news limited was running a negative story on QANTAS every day, if there was no event (such as a delayed plane) that day they'd remind it's readers about QF30. What I think needs to be included in wikipedia is the fact that the media is currently having a field day at Qantas's expense, with little research done (such as the type of plane in an incident changes sometimes multiple times, sometimes to types of planes which Qantas doesn't even own). This is something which is damaging the QANTAS brand, and that's according to Geoff Dixon. Harvyk ( talk) 13:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
\According to a local newspaper, Qantas is going to be merged by another airline, maybe not owned by Australians. The spokesman did not mention the name of the potential buyer, but he confirmed that the kangaroo logo will not disappear after the event of melding. The spokesman also affirmed that the brand of Qantas is damaged by the recent incidents. -- DBPZ ( talk) 21:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
For disputes on this matter please go to Los Angeles International Airport and see the talk page where the matter is being resolved under the guidance of three administrators with the article protected. Thanks and see you there 96.5.66.240 ( talk) 21:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
The emergency landing of QF72 is not a notable incident since it was caused by clear air turbulence (Totally natural as it's caused by weather not the fault of the Aircraft or Qantas. Also Heat lows [Low pressure systems] are common in northern Australia ATM which can cause turbulence) and it's not like QF30 which was a fault of an oxygen tank (Cause of the fault is unknown and well likely to remain so, unless the bottle is found). Bidgee ( talk) 09:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I guess we will have to wait for the outcome of the investigation, before adding this incident to the Qantas page and the 'Aviation incidents / accidents' page. Also, should there be some note of the other incidents listed on the BBC article (one of them being a hydraulic fluid leak visible from the wing during flight!)? 166.83.21.221 ( talk) 10:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Some reports today have revised the injury toll up to as high as 74 (see http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24460959-948,00.html), many of whom have serious injuries. This is without a doubt the most serious incident in Qantas' post-WW2 history, regardless of whether or not it was caused by a natural force or not; that doesn't seem to have stopped many other airline incidents making it onto Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.200.150 ( talk) 16:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Like the other hyped up events which the media has been using against Qantas (I still feel the fact about unfair media targeting \ hype should be listed somewhere in Wikipedia. especially now that loads of credible people have come forwards and said it). Minor details such as the number of people injured seem to change depending on the spin they wish to put on the story. I heard (and read) 6 different news reports within the same hour each one with a different figure, each one sounding like they pulled the number out of thin air. I think we really do need to wait for the proper ATSB report, and not speculation from every man and his dog, inc WA police commissioner who really should have known better. Harvyk ( talk) 06:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Of the most recent news I've heard, turbulence has been ruled out and it was caused by a computer fault in elevator control, yet the artical clearly states it was turbulence. That is why the it shouldn't be mentioned until at least the ATSB release their report and the media stop speculating. jackelfive ( talk) 05:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
It was announced today by Qantas that the cause of the incident was a 'world-first' computer glitch where the use of a passenger's laptop caused the plane's auto-pilot to switch off, sending the plane into a nose-dive. When there are web sources to link to this needs to be included for the sake of article integrity. - Trinkletty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.121.204 ( talk) 11:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
There is now a documented ATSB announcement and related release by Airbus of an Operators Information Telex containing "operational recommendations" which include new procedures "aimed at minimising risk in the unlikely event of a similar occurrence" and which also (according to the ATSB) foreshadows release Operational Engineering Bulletins, all over what Airbus has identified as a unique event. There is clearly demonstrable notability established at this point and accordingly I have restored mention of the accident, though hopefully it's a little more neutral this time. -- Rob.au ( talk) 11:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Was Qantas in fact nationalised, or did the government pay the owners the market price? Grassynoel ( talk) 05:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
If the airlines combine to create the world's largest carrier, what will happen to Delta since it completed its merger with NWA and it is the world's largest airlines. Will DL be the second largest or what? Cashier freak ( talk) 04:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed the section on how a B767 is having a 3 month trial in which passengers can use some features of their cellular phones. I have seen this there for easily over 3 months so I'm wondering whether we should change it, extend it, or just delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.134.180 ( talk) 12:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Ryanair already allows Mobile phone calls, text and email some of it;s flights. It has for a while, so I don't think qantas is/will be the first. This is nohing new, should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.221.6 ( talk) 02:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
All evidence I have found says Qantas is no longer operating these planes. Yes they are stored, but according to airfleets so are some other Qantas planes, and they aren't mentioned in the article, so why should the 743's be included. -- 61.68.226.176 ( talk) 13:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Just because Qantas may not operate the planes doesn't mean that they're not still part of the fleet. As long as they stay registered to Qantas they stay in the fleet. Bidgee ( talk) 13:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Why is QF2 not mentioned under "accidents and incidents"? http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/01/09/1199554720827.html 150.101.157.225 ( talk) 14:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
From the list of destinations, Qantas doesn't fly to 144, it only flies to 53. QantasLink and Jetstar both have their own separate articles. For now I'll change the number, but tell me what you think. æt ə rnal ðrAعon 09:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
On the Qantas Flight 1 page, it refers to the QF1 overshooting the runway incident as the worst in Qantas' history. I want others opinions on this, because I would think that the QF72 incident would be more severe as it had over double the amount of injuries including some serious injuries, unlike QF1, which had 38 minor injuries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.175.234 ( talk) 23:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Qf72 had more injuries but it just doesnt sound as severe as over shooting the runway —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwhistle ( talk • contribs) 04:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Should Brisbane be classified as one of Qantas's hubs instead of 2nd hub as it has 60 daily flights and melbourne has 78 flights, only 18 flights less than one of QFs hubs.Also BNE serves more 4(5 if you only count non-stop) more Qantas Destinations than Melbourne (MEL-16, BNE-20) Bwhistle ( talk) 02:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I rekon it should Virgin blue counts Melbourne as a hub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.98.116 ( talk) 05:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Where does Qantas define Brisbane as a primary hub? Mvjs Talking 11:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
See this discussion at WP:FFD. -- Jheald ( talk) 14:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
A lot of editing and correcting goes on at this page - changes to numbers in the fleet, plane names / numbers / makes, etc, and none of the material is referenced. A reader has no reason to believe any of these figures - each week an editor comes in and 'fixes' it, and never leaves a reference to help with verification. I believe the article needs a clean-out, where unreferenced figures get deleted until someone can come up with some sources for this material. Otherwise, readers just can't have confidence in the data here. hamiltonstone ( talk) 23:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed - see my comment in the "Sex discrimination" section - I know it was the wrong place to put it, but over here it would probably be ignored. David ( talk) 19:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I thought that Qantas Holidays was no longer a "subsidiary", as it was sold off to Jetset? They are simply licensing the use of their brand name to Jetset. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.9.204.194 ( talk) 15:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
This article is not the place to detail every minor accident, incident or occurrence that befalls Qantas. Per WP:AIRCRASH, only significant accidents or incidents should be noted. Significance is not necessarily reliant on a number of (or indeed, any) deaths, but on a number of factors. Substantial damage, serious injuries, legistlated changes to operation as a result all add to notability. A few burst tyres on landing does not. Mjroots ( talk) 11:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
This article is getting a bit difficult to edit due to its size; I propose splitting the History section off into a new article, History of Qantas or something similar. YSSYguy ( talk) 01:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there any benefit from having the "1970" fleet list? It seems out of place, irrelevant and not very precise (eg: when in 1970's?) Printpost ( talk) 02:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Likely not significant enough for inclusion,but I'll leave a link to the news report for reference.
“ | "About 15 minutes into the flight, the flight crew picked up on some excessive vibration in the number four engine," a Qantas spokesman told AAP.
The captain shut down the engine and informed San Francisco air traffic control of the problem. An apparent explosion in the number four engine ripped a hole through its outer shell. |
” |
"New engine for Qantas plane after blast"
Agence France-Presse(AFP) via
Yahoo News
220.101
talk
\Contribs
00:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Airbus A380#Incident - 4 Nov 2010. Please make your views known there. Mjroots ( talk) 05:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
removed from article by
Mjroots (
talk)
Unsure how to fix this, besides just deleting the link, but it does not refer to sex discrimination, rather it's a story about airplane failure. Apologies for putting this here, but this is the proper context for this comment - hopefully someone will fix it! Thx.
David (
talk)
19:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
My bad - I put this comment in the article itself. The problem is that the referenced link is not about sex discrimination, instead it talks about metal fatigue on Qantas planes. Not sure if the link should simply be deleted, or moved, or what...? David ( talk) 19:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Some people continue to re-add the late August incident of QF74 from SFO to Sydney. Firstly, this incident was minor and completely different to that of QF32 last week. The engines are different, and in QF74's case, it was a contained engine failure (aka the crew were able to shut down the engine and return to SFO without further incident, unlike QF32, where the engine was unable to be shut down). Secondly, I believe it is only being added to aid the national Australian sport of 'bashing Qantas'. If it was so important that it required inclusion, why wouldn't it have been included when the incident happened, not after the latest QF32 incident? Finally, I propose that people should refrain from adding the QF74 incident as it was not significant enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.152.173 ( talk) 01:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I suggest creating resolving this problem listing incidents: create a List of Qantas Serious Incidents, to include QF32, and a List of Qantas Other Incidents, to include QF6, QF74 and so on. The List of Qantas fatal accidents is a very good template to use, and theres thousands of lists in Wikipedia and they serve their purpose well. They can also be sorted chronologically but also by other headers like aircraft type, cause etc by clicking the header making them easy to use anyway.
As far as notability and the like, well the List of Qantas fatal accidents are themselves not paticularly relevant or notable for many people (because we are in the jet age) but they are to others (historical perspective). Hence the same can be applied to the current events where one editor considers them relevent and others do not. Remember that some are not technically notable (like a contained engine failure), but the fuss, disruption, reaction, link to another incident and so on may be. For example an unattended bag left in a terminal, a guy with a old man mask, or a passenger uttering the word 'bomb' may not seem notable, but the reactions (security, panic, legalities etc) may definitely be. This is a better outcome than Edit warring and otherwise just wasting time and effort arguing. Let others, including readers, decide notability or relevance by either referring to the list or not.
I dont think one editor reverting another editors work unilaterally is reaching any form of consensus either, remember to Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. Unless its some form of vandalism or in a usual inappropriate content category .. do not revert blocks of content. It does not Assume Good Faith on other editors, and it causes a long list of other problems. It takes a lot longer to write something than to delete it, so if in doubt dont delete it. If somethings over emphasised or seems biased, rephrase it or move it to a more appropriate location.
Even removing unreferenced content should only be done in extreme cases, but still better to use the Template:Citations missing or Wikipedia:Citation needed which is created specially for that purpose. For example, some editors find it quite challenging to reference live TV content (i personally avoid it and prefer finding printed/online material). Adding the template could remind an editor to get the source or perhaps other editors will find it.-- Advanstra ( talk) 06:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree, seems a bit adverty to me and not encyclopedic. 139.168.75.8 ( talk) 09:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
This area was a bit out of date. I have amended it to reflect January 2011 situation. References are cited. As it stands, the iQ system is aboard A380, four new A330-200 and Jetconnect + 2011 delivered Domestic 737. Rockwell Collins system is aboard 747-400, A330-300 and international A330-200. Mainscreen is the rest of the fleet sans QantasLink. 767 International (with Dreamtime seats) have looped AVOD in Business. Printpost ( talk) 13:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Need someone to provide a source stating that LAX is a secondary hub for Qantas. Thanks! Snoozlepet ( talk) 21:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
There was an incident involving the same A380 from QF32 in June/July 2009 when the front landing gear failed. Should we add that to the incidents and accidents page? 161.130.178.177 ( talk) 04:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh. Thanks. Anyways, the flight was Qantas Flight 31. 161.130.178.177 ( talk) 14:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
A 'fact file' pdf was recently published by Qantas in September 2010. After a quick review of it there is quite a bit of statistical information in that file. If anyone has any time, please help me extract the information and add it into the article. YuMaNuMa ( talk) 09:52, 12 September 2011 (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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
OK. With the recent FAC nomination I put in for Qantas, I have had some recomendations (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Qantas) I am willing to make most of these changes myself or for anybody willing to help, I would apprechiate it. If I have no response for supports, opposing or anyone willing to help by November the 2nd, I will start making these changes immediatly by myself. I am doing this so Qantas will be a FA one day soon!
Please reply on my talk page as well as here. Aflumpire 22:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Please do not any major edits to Qantas in the next few days while this is a FAC. I have a limited internet connection at work and none at home for a few days. If any major changes do want to be made in the next few days, please place a comment on my disscussion page. I will notify on this page when I have completed the major upgrades.
Aflumpire 22:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:Img cover sept.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 00:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The article mentions Qantas are receiving 787-8 and 787-9, the 787-8 are going straight to Jetstar and shouldn't be marked down for the Qantas fleet. -- Goldwing 5000 ( talk) 12:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
In the last day there has been revisions done by people who suggest that some recent events are notable or not notable to be added to the page. Personally I dont think that events such as the rejected landing (VH-OEJ at LAX) where no serious damage or injury occurred are really worth adding to this page. The other recent incident at Darwin involving 717 VH-NXE however, I think is worthy as the aircraft sustained damage and may or may not still be too damaged to repair (I might be baised as I added this incident to the page!) Please add your opinons here instead of undoing peoples revisions etc.... Andrew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazkal ( talk • contribs) 13:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Somebody has added an asterisk linked to the Airbus A340 page in the middle of the sentence, "Although Qantas did not choose the Boeing 777-200LR, it is rumoured that Qantas is still looking into buying aircraft* capable of flying Sydney-London non-stop." This is Ridiculous.-- Goldwing 5000 ( talk) 06:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC) The Fleet section also says Qantas does have 1 A380 with 20 ordered, they do have 20 ordered but currently don't have one.-- Goldwing 5000 ( talk) 06:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
can this be substantiated or qualified or cited? At the moment it flies (no pun intended) in the face of the linked article. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 18:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
A discussion has been created at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines#Inflation_of_Qantas_fleet_numbers in regards to inflated numbers being used for Qantas (and some other airlines). If you have anything to add to the discussion, please do so at that link. -- Россавиа Диалог 04:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the 8 April incident twice as not particularly notable against the WP:AIRLINE guideline, I could be wrong can the IP user who keeps re-adding it please explain its notability. Thanks MilborneOne ( talk) 11:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The picture entitled "Boeing 747-400 landing at London Heathrow Airport" seems to be a picture of a 747 taking off; given the aircraft's attitude and the partly retracted position of the landing gear. I note that his has been recognised before by the photographer but the wikipedia entry itself hasn't been updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.223.161 ( talk) 09:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I do not feel that the QF30 incident meets the notability criteria for accidents and incidents as per WP:AIRLINES. It was not a hull loss or any serious damage beyond economical repair. Not a single passenger was injured. It certainly pails in comparison to the QF1 runway overrun. There are two other discussions on this very page about similar incidents. We could include the numerous 747-300 incidents that have occurred but we don't. Under this rationale, I have removed this from the page. Mvjs ( talk) 10:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Qantas Flight 30 has an article created. Nachoman-au ( talk) 11:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't just like there was a minor problem with the landing gear but a large chunk of the plane just blew open and debris started flying inside! IT is very serious! They said that some of the ceiling and floor fell in! That is serious! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.252.88 ( talk) 12:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The incident fails both basic notability guidelines and WP:AIRLINES notability guidelines. Despite current media coverage as the event has just occurred, there is no evidence to prove that this event will have long-term notability, which is the real determinant of including such an event in the section. I have requested semi-protection for this article to prevent the edit warring between anon users. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and unless news coverage continues into the future and over and beyond the context of simply this piece of aircraft falling off, there's no reason to mention it in the article as a major incident. There's no indication that this has resulted in hull loss or that this is permanent damage to the aircraft. NcSchu( Talk) 13:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Everyone: I don't have an opinion either way, but I will note that if people keep reverting each other blindly, I'll protect the page, probably to the version you don't like. Work something out here, stop with the "rubbish" comments, and come up with something reasonable. -- barneca ( talk) 13:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. My opinion is that this incident is notable, due to the relative infrequency of in-air incidents and the severity of the damage. There was significant damage to the hull of a major commercial aircraft sustained while in-flight. If it were something simple such as an instrument broke off I would agree that it is not notable, but this was a very serious event that could have been much more catastrophic. I fly 4-6 times a week and enjoy reading about these incidents. I would hate to have this piece of history stripped from Wikipedia. Thoughts? Benace ( talk) 14:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Ths incident, however, should be notable enough to include in the article as an incident...but once everything about this incident is known. -- AEMoreira042281 ( talk) 14:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
How can you call this incident "Serious"? Yes, it was a 2-metre hole, but remember, this is not a Cessna we are talking about, this is a 747. if you look at the photos that show the whole plane, you can barely see the hole. Jackelfive ( talk) 08:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
So are we going to keep it up?I believe still it is ABSOLUTELY worth it. Sparrowman980 ( talk) 05:20, 26 July 2008 (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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
This could really do with a complete re-write/re-org. It is a mishmash of good info, badly structured - it just wanders all over the place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.174.132 ( talk) 15:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
There is no 'u' in Qantas! Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CupO'Shit ( talk • contribs) 07:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, so if Qantas is now a word, not an acronym, why do we pronounce it as if a 'u' existed, as opposed to a hard 'c'? Yes, I realise that the result will be sophomoric, but remember that we pronounce Al Qaeda (or Al Qa'ida, take your pick) with a hard 'c', so why can we not be consistent? (And no, not because "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - that's not a real answer!) David ( talk) 17:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
on the map of destinations it has a spot for North Korea. There is no way Qantas would ever even consider flying there, so this is an error someone please fix it.
I think that an article about how Qantas may be declining its quality (with offshore maintenance of aircraft) should be included. I remember seeing in the news that a Qantas aircraft that was checked by Malaysian Airlines was found to have about 95 defects that the MA engineers had not picked up. I know that the media may be bashing up some articles - I saw an article title regarding the Qantas domestic flight which the landing gear door wouldn't close saying that a Qantas door opened in flight - but hydraulic failures, explosive decompressions don't happen every day and I know that some incidents are only brought to media attention because of the recent incidents but Qantas is definitely beginning to decline in its quality and regarding those safety scares all Qantas says is "There was no safety issue at any time". Wjs13 ( talk) 01:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
On the fleet list, it says that the Airbus A330-300 flies non-domestic routes. However, I've been on-board a recent flight that operates daily to Sydney from Adelaide on the A330. I'm going to modify it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.166.134 ( talk) 08:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I Cant find any A330-300 flights between Melbourne and Perth ony syd-per. Bwhistle ( talk) 01:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Why is there nothing on the recent incidents on Qantas flights, even though they make 15 minutes of Australian news every day? There should be a section added on the recent maintainance issues and emergency landings. -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs 09:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree, there should be a section on media hype given the amount of news theres been recently absolutely minor things, and the absolutely long shot style links between a minor event picked up during routine inspection and major events (such as Alaska Airlines Flight 261) Harvyk ( talk) 07:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Bidgee, I don't think you understand where I'm coming from. I personally couldn't care less if a Qantas plane was delayed for 12 hours, that's is now news, it shouldn't be included in wikipedia, and it shouldn't be a headline in the media either, however the news outlets right now seem to think it is. I don't want to have a listing on every thing that has gone wrong with a Qantas plane over the last few months, as with exception to the QF30 incident, every single other issue is so unbelievably non-newsworthy it's beyond a joke. The important detail is that the newspapers feel we should be told about even the most minor details right now, regardless of the facts. The articles which these newspapers are writing are poorly written, they are often making major mistakes, sometimes even contradicting themselves in the same article, and ensure that emotive words such as "plunged" and "feared for my life" makes it into the headlines. For a period there news limited was running a negative story on QANTAS every day, if there was no event (such as a delayed plane) that day they'd remind it's readers about QF30. What I think needs to be included in wikipedia is the fact that the media is currently having a field day at Qantas's expense, with little research done (such as the type of plane in an incident changes sometimes multiple times, sometimes to types of planes which Qantas doesn't even own). This is something which is damaging the QANTAS brand, and that's according to Geoff Dixon. Harvyk ( talk) 13:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
\According to a local newspaper, Qantas is going to be merged by another airline, maybe not owned by Australians. The spokesman did not mention the name of the potential buyer, but he confirmed that the kangaroo logo will not disappear after the event of melding. The spokesman also affirmed that the brand of Qantas is damaged by the recent incidents. -- DBPZ ( talk) 21:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
For disputes on this matter please go to Los Angeles International Airport and see the talk page where the matter is being resolved under the guidance of three administrators with the article protected. Thanks and see you there 96.5.66.240 ( talk) 21:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
The emergency landing of QF72 is not a notable incident since it was caused by clear air turbulence (Totally natural as it's caused by weather not the fault of the Aircraft or Qantas. Also Heat lows [Low pressure systems] are common in northern Australia ATM which can cause turbulence) and it's not like QF30 which was a fault of an oxygen tank (Cause of the fault is unknown and well likely to remain so, unless the bottle is found). Bidgee ( talk) 09:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I guess we will have to wait for the outcome of the investigation, before adding this incident to the Qantas page and the 'Aviation incidents / accidents' page. Also, should there be some note of the other incidents listed on the BBC article (one of them being a hydraulic fluid leak visible from the wing during flight!)? 166.83.21.221 ( talk) 10:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Some reports today have revised the injury toll up to as high as 74 (see http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24460959-948,00.html), many of whom have serious injuries. This is without a doubt the most serious incident in Qantas' post-WW2 history, regardless of whether or not it was caused by a natural force or not; that doesn't seem to have stopped many other airline incidents making it onto Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.200.150 ( talk) 16:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Like the other hyped up events which the media has been using against Qantas (I still feel the fact about unfair media targeting \ hype should be listed somewhere in Wikipedia. especially now that loads of credible people have come forwards and said it). Minor details such as the number of people injured seem to change depending on the spin they wish to put on the story. I heard (and read) 6 different news reports within the same hour each one with a different figure, each one sounding like they pulled the number out of thin air. I think we really do need to wait for the proper ATSB report, and not speculation from every man and his dog, inc WA police commissioner who really should have known better. Harvyk ( talk) 06:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Of the most recent news I've heard, turbulence has been ruled out and it was caused by a computer fault in elevator control, yet the artical clearly states it was turbulence. That is why the it shouldn't be mentioned until at least the ATSB release their report and the media stop speculating. jackelfive ( talk) 05:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
It was announced today by Qantas that the cause of the incident was a 'world-first' computer glitch where the use of a passenger's laptop caused the plane's auto-pilot to switch off, sending the plane into a nose-dive. When there are web sources to link to this needs to be included for the sake of article integrity. - Trinkletty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.121.204 ( talk) 11:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
There is now a documented ATSB announcement and related release by Airbus of an Operators Information Telex containing "operational recommendations" which include new procedures "aimed at minimising risk in the unlikely event of a similar occurrence" and which also (according to the ATSB) foreshadows release Operational Engineering Bulletins, all over what Airbus has identified as a unique event. There is clearly demonstrable notability established at this point and accordingly I have restored mention of the accident, though hopefully it's a little more neutral this time. -- Rob.au ( talk) 11:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Was Qantas in fact nationalised, or did the government pay the owners the market price? Grassynoel ( talk) 05:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
If the airlines combine to create the world's largest carrier, what will happen to Delta since it completed its merger with NWA and it is the world's largest airlines. Will DL be the second largest or what? Cashier freak ( talk) 04:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed the section on how a B767 is having a 3 month trial in which passengers can use some features of their cellular phones. I have seen this there for easily over 3 months so I'm wondering whether we should change it, extend it, or just delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.134.180 ( talk) 12:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Ryanair already allows Mobile phone calls, text and email some of it;s flights. It has for a while, so I don't think qantas is/will be the first. This is nohing new, should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.221.6 ( talk) 02:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
All evidence I have found says Qantas is no longer operating these planes. Yes they are stored, but according to airfleets so are some other Qantas planes, and they aren't mentioned in the article, so why should the 743's be included. -- 61.68.226.176 ( talk) 13:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Just because Qantas may not operate the planes doesn't mean that they're not still part of the fleet. As long as they stay registered to Qantas they stay in the fleet. Bidgee ( talk) 13:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Why is QF2 not mentioned under "accidents and incidents"? http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/01/09/1199554720827.html 150.101.157.225 ( talk) 14:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
From the list of destinations, Qantas doesn't fly to 144, it only flies to 53. QantasLink and Jetstar both have their own separate articles. For now I'll change the number, but tell me what you think. æt ə rnal ðrAعon 09:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
On the Qantas Flight 1 page, it refers to the QF1 overshooting the runway incident as the worst in Qantas' history. I want others opinions on this, because I would think that the QF72 incident would be more severe as it had over double the amount of injuries including some serious injuries, unlike QF1, which had 38 minor injuries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.175.234 ( talk) 23:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Qf72 had more injuries but it just doesnt sound as severe as over shooting the runway —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwhistle ( talk • contribs) 04:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Should Brisbane be classified as one of Qantas's hubs instead of 2nd hub as it has 60 daily flights and melbourne has 78 flights, only 18 flights less than one of QFs hubs.Also BNE serves more 4(5 if you only count non-stop) more Qantas Destinations than Melbourne (MEL-16, BNE-20) Bwhistle ( talk) 02:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I rekon it should Virgin blue counts Melbourne as a hub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.98.116 ( talk) 05:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Where does Qantas define Brisbane as a primary hub? Mvjs Talking 11:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
See this discussion at WP:FFD. -- Jheald ( talk) 14:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
A lot of editing and correcting goes on at this page - changes to numbers in the fleet, plane names / numbers / makes, etc, and none of the material is referenced. A reader has no reason to believe any of these figures - each week an editor comes in and 'fixes' it, and never leaves a reference to help with verification. I believe the article needs a clean-out, where unreferenced figures get deleted until someone can come up with some sources for this material. Otherwise, readers just can't have confidence in the data here. hamiltonstone ( talk) 23:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed - see my comment in the "Sex discrimination" section - I know it was the wrong place to put it, but over here it would probably be ignored. David ( talk) 19:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I thought that Qantas Holidays was no longer a "subsidiary", as it was sold off to Jetset? They are simply licensing the use of their brand name to Jetset. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.9.204.194 ( talk) 15:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
This article is not the place to detail every minor accident, incident or occurrence that befalls Qantas. Per WP:AIRCRASH, only significant accidents or incidents should be noted. Significance is not necessarily reliant on a number of (or indeed, any) deaths, but on a number of factors. Substantial damage, serious injuries, legistlated changes to operation as a result all add to notability. A few burst tyres on landing does not. Mjroots ( talk) 11:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
This article is getting a bit difficult to edit due to its size; I propose splitting the History section off into a new article, History of Qantas or something similar. YSSYguy ( talk) 01:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there any benefit from having the "1970" fleet list? It seems out of place, irrelevant and not very precise (eg: when in 1970's?) Printpost ( talk) 02:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Likely not significant enough for inclusion,but I'll leave a link to the news report for reference.
“ | "About 15 minutes into the flight, the flight crew picked up on some excessive vibration in the number four engine," a Qantas spokesman told AAP.
The captain shut down the engine and informed San Francisco air traffic control of the problem. An apparent explosion in the number four engine ripped a hole through its outer shell. |
” |
"New engine for Qantas plane after blast"
Agence France-Presse(AFP) via
Yahoo News
220.101
talk
\Contribs
00:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Airbus A380#Incident - 4 Nov 2010. Please make your views known there. Mjroots ( talk) 05:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
removed from article by
Mjroots (
talk)
Unsure how to fix this, besides just deleting the link, but it does not refer to sex discrimination, rather it's a story about airplane failure. Apologies for putting this here, but this is the proper context for this comment - hopefully someone will fix it! Thx.
David (
talk)
19:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
My bad - I put this comment in the article itself. The problem is that the referenced link is not about sex discrimination, instead it talks about metal fatigue on Qantas planes. Not sure if the link should simply be deleted, or moved, or what...? David ( talk) 19:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Some people continue to re-add the late August incident of QF74 from SFO to Sydney. Firstly, this incident was minor and completely different to that of QF32 last week. The engines are different, and in QF74's case, it was a contained engine failure (aka the crew were able to shut down the engine and return to SFO without further incident, unlike QF32, where the engine was unable to be shut down). Secondly, I believe it is only being added to aid the national Australian sport of 'bashing Qantas'. If it was so important that it required inclusion, why wouldn't it have been included when the incident happened, not after the latest QF32 incident? Finally, I propose that people should refrain from adding the QF74 incident as it was not significant enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.152.173 ( talk) 01:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I suggest creating resolving this problem listing incidents: create a List of Qantas Serious Incidents, to include QF32, and a List of Qantas Other Incidents, to include QF6, QF74 and so on. The List of Qantas fatal accidents is a very good template to use, and theres thousands of lists in Wikipedia and they serve their purpose well. They can also be sorted chronologically but also by other headers like aircraft type, cause etc by clicking the header making them easy to use anyway.
As far as notability and the like, well the List of Qantas fatal accidents are themselves not paticularly relevant or notable for many people (because we are in the jet age) but they are to others (historical perspective). Hence the same can be applied to the current events where one editor considers them relevent and others do not. Remember that some are not technically notable (like a contained engine failure), but the fuss, disruption, reaction, link to another incident and so on may be. For example an unattended bag left in a terminal, a guy with a old man mask, or a passenger uttering the word 'bomb' may not seem notable, but the reactions (security, panic, legalities etc) may definitely be. This is a better outcome than Edit warring and otherwise just wasting time and effort arguing. Let others, including readers, decide notability or relevance by either referring to the list or not.
I dont think one editor reverting another editors work unilaterally is reaching any form of consensus either, remember to Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. Unless its some form of vandalism or in a usual inappropriate content category .. do not revert blocks of content. It does not Assume Good Faith on other editors, and it causes a long list of other problems. It takes a lot longer to write something than to delete it, so if in doubt dont delete it. If somethings over emphasised or seems biased, rephrase it or move it to a more appropriate location.
Even removing unreferenced content should only be done in extreme cases, but still better to use the Template:Citations missing or Wikipedia:Citation needed which is created specially for that purpose. For example, some editors find it quite challenging to reference live TV content (i personally avoid it and prefer finding printed/online material). Adding the template could remind an editor to get the source or perhaps other editors will find it.-- Advanstra ( talk) 06:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree, seems a bit adverty to me and not encyclopedic. 139.168.75.8 ( talk) 09:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
This area was a bit out of date. I have amended it to reflect January 2011 situation. References are cited. As it stands, the iQ system is aboard A380, four new A330-200 and Jetconnect + 2011 delivered Domestic 737. Rockwell Collins system is aboard 747-400, A330-300 and international A330-200. Mainscreen is the rest of the fleet sans QantasLink. 767 International (with Dreamtime seats) have looped AVOD in Business. Printpost ( talk) 13:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Need someone to provide a source stating that LAX is a secondary hub for Qantas. Thanks! Snoozlepet ( talk) 21:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
There was an incident involving the same A380 from QF32 in June/July 2009 when the front landing gear failed. Should we add that to the incidents and accidents page? 161.130.178.177 ( talk) 04:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh. Thanks. Anyways, the flight was Qantas Flight 31. 161.130.178.177 ( talk) 14:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
A 'fact file' pdf was recently published by Qantas in September 2010. After a quick review of it there is quite a bit of statistical information in that file. If anyone has any time, please help me extract the information and add it into the article. YuMaNuMa ( talk) 09:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)