![]() | 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 | Archive 4 |
Why not list project Bojinka on the United Airlines page? If it went off, 8 of their planes would have been destroyed over the ocean on January 21 and 22 1995. I think it should be listed as the project was a potential threat to the airline and its customers. WhisperToMe 03:59, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
PDX should not be listed as a focus city, as UAL doesn't provide service from PDX to cities other than its hubs.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Groeneman ( talk • contribs) 16:58, 4 September 2005
Why aren't United Airlines' new logo pictured anywhere? The old gray/blue logo was replaced with a new all blue logo. vw12 November 13, 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.13 ( talk • contribs) 06:28, 13 November 2005
Narita (Tokyo) is NOT a hub! If anything it is a secondary/focus city even though UA technically does not have them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.128.172 ( talk • contribs) 15:53, 15 December 2005
I also took the liberty of removing Hong Kong as a focus city, because United doesn't seem to have any extraordinary service there. I'm tempted to remove Honolulu and JFK as well, since each only has one route beyond UA's hubs and focus cities, but those are tougher cases so might as well leave them. - Sekicho 21:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
..."multiple destinations" meaning Ho Chi Minh City and Singapore. Does two flights a day make an airport a focus city? Or, in the case of JFK, one (LHR)? Or in the case of HNL, one (KIX)? I'm kinda confused as to how we're defining things here. Sekicho 04:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Based on the discussion over at WikiProject Airlines, it seems that NRT is the only "focus city" UA currently has. Any objections? - Sekicho 19:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Didn't they recently add SAT as a focus city? J1729 20:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, UA considers NRT a hub, lots of connections but i guess the 14 flights a day keeps people from opening their eyes to what a hub is. Fact is not all hubs need 300+ dailies. I'm not going to change the table as there will be no more focus cities for everyone to see, but HKG and SEA are...per UA. Whatever, someone who has the facts changes something for the better and some highschooler or enthusiast just changes it back. oh well. Fry1234, KORD
You're getting this from the UAL page? I work at UA in routes and planning, and we call HKG and SEA focus cities, and NRT a hub. Fry1234 07:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
For United Airlines, a gateway city is technically a focus city of sorts, United does not operate focus cities a la Delta/American/US Airways and thus cannot have our definition of a focus city subject to the same categorization as the three airlines mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.216.170 ( talk • contribs)
I see your point about using public-domain sources, but when we work on SEA and HKG, we call them focus operations, solely due to the reason they connect and have FA domiciles. Well, the NRT-SEA flight isnt going anywhere. I really dont care if the page says SEA and HKG are focus ops, just wanted to clear it up. United has plans for HKG and SEA, which i wish i could discuss on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.216.170 ( talk • contribs)
well, ive worked for UA 24 years now and work in routes and planning, and "we", meanign the department, call the cities focus operations. United and I are not we...come on...after taking paycuts like "we"...us employees did..United and I are far from chum. Fry1234 18:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
no, the ip is my personal, the IT department monitors that sort of activity and id get into a bad situation. fry1234
According to USA Today San Antonio is referred to by United as both a focus city and a "hublet" It boasts 12 non stop destinations from San Antonio International which is more than from any non hub city. These cities include New Orleans, Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Colorado Springs, and other destinations which are not United hubs. Passengers are also connecting in San Antonio which is a first for that airport.
Why isn't SEA a focus city of UA? It operates the majority of the flights out of SEA to UA hubs. Bucs2004 03:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
You just contradicted your argument. If you didn't your argument doesn't make sense. SEA was never designated a focus city. -- Physicq210 18:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you work for United or have any authority to post what is or is not part of the airline's network? Am i missing something? I just want to know why you seem so "pushy" about what can be included on this page. About SEA and other focus ops, just cause it isnt specified in the annual report means its null and void? So back in 2000, when UA had over 100 daily operations into the airport, it wasn't a focus city?...weird, because i personally remember doing some of the scheduling for the SEA focus city, as it was called in meetings by people higher than me and many others. I'm not ridiculing you, so take no offense to this post. I just want to know why a high school kid is the "boss" of a page about a company with 80 years in business. Fry1234 05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
And one more thing, i see you've done lots for many different topics and i dont mean to criticize your age, as it doesnt matter. my son is in high school and the only reason i became a member on this site is due to the fact that he was doing a report on UA and told me to look at this site. i was just wondering as to why it seemed so hard to get a point across on this page. Fry1234 05:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
"Vicious personal attack"? wow... okay... and 2000 was far from a glory year. Fry1234 05:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
you were kidding about the personal attack thing? i read my post over and over and i find the viciousness you say to be not included. Fry1234 05:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC) I know we talk of United now, and not in 2000, but SEA is a focus city until the regional connections leave.
by many? people on this site are that touchy? well, okay, this is silly, we are the only contributors to this page on a regular basis, by that i mean daily, correct? Fry1234 05:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Why did you retract your statement? your interpretation of the facts isnt flawed, nor is mine. just conflicting views Fry1234 05:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, I see your point at how SEA is a focus city. However, Wikipedia has a guideline called WP:RS, which (sort of) requires reliable and readily assessible sources to be available to back a claim. It also has a policy called WP:OR, which bars original research from being used. I'm not saying you're wrong, but unfortunately you need to cite a source to back your side of the argument. -- physicq210 05:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
oh, i understand where they come from with that. Fry1234 05:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
i was saying i understand where Wikipedia comes from with the readily available sourcing on subjects. Fry1234 06:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey Fry1234 and Physicq210, perhaps it is time to cool off a little bit. Take a little bit of time off and get some perspective on this.. Its just an encyclopedia. Cliffb 18:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I spent some time wrangling the fleet chart. Its got some pretty extensive formatting changes. Usually I'd be a bit more bold, but I'd like feedback before moving it over to the article... Cliffb 18:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Aren't the 747s still sometimes used interhub. I know I flew a 744 from SFO to ORD (coming back from PVG) in 2003. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
UAAC (
talk •
contribs) 23:11, 2006 August 12.
I think the additions to the bankruptcy section by 67.163.8.43 should be reverted -- they're far too detailed and go beyond the scope of the article, and disrupt the flow. — Cliffb 07:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it should be reverted. While the added information has lots of value, it's too lengthy, plus some of the information isn't correct.
Fry1234
21:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Is it necessary to categorize all the links in the external links section, or can we jsut consolidate them? -- physicq210 18:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I judged this article on 7 criteria:
For an article to pass references, I look for around 20ish on most GA contenders. I'd almost look for more on this, but only because it's so long. Regardless, this article has only 1 ref, and that's not good enough. I also failed the well written requirement, for 2 things. The lead is poorly written, and does not summarize the article very well, and even though there are other articles linked to, I'd want the beginning paragraph to at least have a couple of sentences, rather than just the links. If these issues are resolved, feel free to message me on my talk page, I'd be happy to re-evaluate the article. -- PresN 01:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
United Airline should purchase 747-8 so they can fly more routes farther and replace their very old 747's. The 747-8 is really more econmic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eclaw ( talk • contribs) 22:02, 31 October 2006
In addition to today's "activity", I have found POV addiotion on Dec. 6 of a similar tone. Check IP's beginning with a 6 especially (the ones I've seen so far have come from 67, 68, and 69). Thanks. - BillCJ 06:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I am a 10 year employee at United Airlines and I have insider knowledge as to what happened there. When I go and try to add FACTS to the articles someone comes and erases it. Is this person a UAL employee like I am? I think not. Why change what I am writing on there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TRIPxCORE ( talk • contribs) 06:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
I gave a source for my Summer From Hell contribution and now you still erase it on me! Wikipedia is biased and a fraud! - TRIPxCORE
So where are the sources listed and cited for what has already been written in the UAL article may I ask? - TRIPxCORE
As a employee at United, which none of you happen to be, the veracity of my contributions cannot be disputed by any of you. None of you can come close to knowing the truth's that I know. Yet you haphazardly erase what I write and give a bunch of ridiculous reasons as to why you did it. So I go along with your ridiculous rule and find a source and still you erase what I write. Now I am told that just because I have a source that doesn't automatically guarantee inclusion!! First I needed a source and now I need one that can be verified by someone? By who, you? It's been made quite clear to me that Wikipedia kowtows to big business, is afraid to let the truth be known, is biased and a huge fraud! There isn't one piece of that UAL article that was already written before I got here that has a verifiable source attached to it. Now the rule gets implemented for me for trying to tell the truth. I will make sure to tell everyone what Wikipedia stands for and that if the truth is to be known, to avoid this place at all costs because it's biased! - TRIPxCORE
- you are right that the rest does not have sources. However, to this point no one has questioned the validity of those sections or facts, so they have remained.
This is what you wrote to me. So who may I ask questioned the validity of what I wrote then? - TRIPxCORE
The only way to write the article is to tell the truth, which is what I did. It may sound harsh because the actions of that time were harsh. What I wrote is exactly the way it happened. I wrote it in a neutral way. I didn't go and say that the things were happening to me personally even though they were. I wrote it as an outside observer. I think it requires no change. Joe 00:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I already gave a "verifiable" source for the "Summer From Hell" contribution. Joe 02:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-unitedday3-story,0,4838025.story?coll=chi-unitednavover-misc Joe 03:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Here is the source:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-unitedday3-story,0,4838025.story?coll=chi-unitednavover-misc
Joe 03:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
We need cleanup on the "travel classes" section. Big top 16:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand this flag!?! There are only two 'citation needed' flags ... why would only two flags trigger the whole article to be discredited??? -- Inetpup 06:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
This sentence was removed by User:FCYTravis: 'However, the introduction of this service has created unbalanced load factors between the middle of the aircraft (Economy Plus), which is often underutilized, and the rear of the plane (UnitedEconomy), which often operate at crush load.' The reason given was: (rm nonsense sentence - the whole point of E+ is that it's a premium product over regular Economy offered only to those who have paid more or who have earned access through loyalty.)
I propose adding something that states that Economy Plus has caused UnitedEconomy to suffer ... United agents will only seat UnitedEconomy passengers in Economy Plus once seats have been exhausted in UnitedEconomy. This leads to the new UnitedEconomy being inferior to the old UnitedEconomy, which allowed for a more balanced distribution of passengers throughout the aircraft. In other words, United not only introduced a premium product (Economy Plus), but its introduction necessarily led to the downgrade of UnitedEconomy.-- Inetpup 21:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Some guy changed the Incidents section. Do you agree that the table format is good? I think it kinda sucks. It hasn't even been discussed here. -- Inetpup 23:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted the "classes" of Mileage Plus, because this is information available in their site, and is a promotion of the company, which is hard to keep track of, and also to avoid Wikipedia to become a free advertising channel for the company. 200.222.3.3 23:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Global Services modified to note that United does not publish qualification criteria for Global Services program, and that membership is by invitation only. There is no source to cited for the 50k requalification claim. 70.6.214.49 01:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Should we just have a separate article on Mileage Plus--all this info makes the already long article way too long. Gb6819 15:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I also vote for the deletion of the section about the cabin, we're doing free marketing for the company!! 200.222.3.3 23:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe convert to a table-format. I agree this whole thing sounds like an ad. Gb6819 15:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I tried to make it sound less advertisement-like. I, on the contrary to the two above, think it's a good part of the page as the information is valuable to me and [hopefully] other travelers... Sjodenenator ( talk) 09:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Talk:Delta Air Lines#Complaint Links about the removal of the links to the complaints bulletin boards (such as www.unitedcomplaints.com, these complaints bulletin boards are all from one company and have minimal information) from airline articles. I invite you to discuss this change there. -- Matt 01:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
What makes London Heathrow Airport a focus city? I just noticed this today. Actually, someone moved around the hubs, too. 10:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Someone already removed LHR, too. 12:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the edits to this page, estpecially the first section should not be made every time there's a speculation on merger. There have been tons of rumors that have not come to fruition, and are not subject to inclusion in an encyclopaedic article. Every time the United management goes out to any conference, the following scenario occurs.
Mgmt: (talks for 1 hour about changes since Chapeter 11 and business plans).
Reporter: What about consolidation?
Mgmt: Consolidation is good for the industry; a merger may make this company stronger.
Reporter: (writes article folcusing solely on consolidation)
On the other hand, everyone editing missed the Aloha deal... Gb6819 16:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:United mileagepluslogo.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 11:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm inclined to remove the recent news section on the article. Wikipedia is not a site for recent news. Some of the content in there is useful, such as the San Fransisco to Guangzhou route and LA to Shanghai and should be moved elsewhere in the article. But the article didn't even mention Silver Wings before, so is it important to mention its removal? Is the name of the chef designing first class meals important? I don't think it's even notable, the articles written were basically just reannouncing United's press release. -- Matt 14:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I have updated the "In Pop Culture" section to reflect that the setting for The Terminal is actually Los Angeles International Airport but is described in the movie as John F Kennedy International Airport. If you pay attention to gate the Tom Hanks takes up residence at, it is gate 69 which is one of United's gates at LAX ( Martok527 00:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)).
I also updated the reference that stated Chris Tucker was a United Ramp Agent, to read he was a United Mechanic as is seen if you pay close attention to the jump suit he is wearing, and as United strictly differentiates Ramp (CG) and Mechanic (MM) employees ( Martok527 00:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)).
Should we designate Honolulu International Airport as a UA focus city? I mean it does have flights to and from its hubs, non-hubs, and in Japan. Bucs2004 01:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
United is reconfiguring its three class airplanes. They are reducing the number of seats in first and business and (I think) adding seats in coach (possibly by removing some economy plus seats).
The first newly reconfigured 767 will fly on Oct 29 from IAD-FRA. It will have 6 first class seats, 26 lie-flat business seats, and 151 (possibly more?) economy seats. Newly reconfigured 747s and 777s will join the fleet at later dates. Anyone know what the numbers for these reconfigured planes will be and where can we fit that into the fleet size chart? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.179.54 ( talk) 23:28, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
Jendeyoung 20:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
What makes Hong Kong a focus city? I just noticed this recently. It only flies to 2 non-hub cities (Ho Chi Minh City and Singapore) and soon to be 3 of its hubs (Chicago, San Francisco, and soon to be Los Angeles). Bucs2004 16:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Did any of you read the 'United Airlines -- Back from the Brink' article (on page 48, 12/2007 issue) of Air International Magazine? They used a great deal of information from our article that all of you contributed to! Some of it is almost word-for-word! Great job, given that they used us as a reliable source! -- Inetpup ( talk) 06:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The section about codeshare agreements seems to be rather short. For example it does not include UA's codeshare agreement with NZ (Air New Zealand). I'm sure there are many more which are not listed. James Pole ( talk) 06:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
On the San Francisco International Airport article, a user changed the date for UA's SFO-CAN route to begins on June 18, 2009 instead of 2008. Will UA still fly on 6/18/2008 or has it been pushed back a year? Thanks! 74.183.173.237 ( talk) 23:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Inetpup has been using the phrase "premature death" in the sentence "The premature death of Ted will furlough approximately 100 aircraft". I've been trying to change "premature death" to "closure" as I believe premature is a judgment call, not really suitable in the article. Could others weigh in on what appropriate phrasing here would be? -- Matt ( talk) 14:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Please expand the references on all subjects in this article. I've started tagging some questionable statements regarding the Strike of 1985, which is almost entirely unsourced. To maintain neutrality and to ensure reliability, all of these sentences need citations. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds ( talk) 18:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I am working on that now. I have added two links and will have more in the days ahead. EditorASC ( talk) 19:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
For the past couple of days, anon IPs continue to re-add NRT in the infox as a UA focus city. Was NRT ever a focus city or did UA removed it as focus city? 74.183.173.237 ( talk) 03:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I spoke with a UA representative recently who noted they consider NRT a focus city and SEA and HNL gateway cities. 67.170.104.140 ( talk) 07:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
"United has also showed no interest in the Boeing 787 Dreamliner project, also to help deal with current tough economic times, also affecting other major US airlines." Seems to me this is incorrect since UA is lobbying to become a GoldCare partner for 787 maintenance. 67.170.104.140 ( talk) 07:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Added this point. Beevo ( talk) 15:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I have some one who keeps editing without a cite, that united express is ending service RDM-PDX... we just had capacity additions announced recently so it sounds kind of odd... anyways anyone have a ref on this? 72.0.187.239 ( talk) 21:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Was noted as an issue. I moved much of the recent news to the Recent News section - it simply needs chronological organization now. 24.18.142.164 ( talk) 15:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
That phrase will return 7 million hits via Google. United says they are using this video as a part of their training now, so it is even significant to them. The video now has 6 million views. EVERY single major media outlet has reported on it including CNN, Fox, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, etc. Every blogger on the planet has mentioned it. The only reason this has not been included in the article is because some of the editors likely work for United. I cannot believe you have managed to even keep it out of the popular culture section of the article. Whoever you are that's keeping this video about United Airlines out of the article is pretty slick. Eventually Wiki will win, this major development will be indluded in the article and you'll lose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 ( talk) 14:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Propose to remove the images from the fleet list, a non-standard practice which provides to small images to be useful and bloats an already full table particularly on small screen sizes. Comments ? MilborneOne ( talk) 19:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely agree Beevo ( talk) 20:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Removed as there were no objections. Beevo ( talk) 15:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
A number of users are making updates to the fleet numbers based on what must be unsubstantiated information on airline fan websites. For instance, I've had to revert two separate changes which showed that the 737-500 has been removed from the fleet when it's still flying.
Please do not make such changes until the planes are actually removed from the fleet. Beevo ( talk) 15:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Should this be mentioned anywhere in the article? http://cr.yp.to/conferences/iadams.html If not, why not? Could a sentence saying something like "there are reports of problems with compensation for damage to baggage handled by UA [1]" I know the UA PR people won't like it, but is there a real reason not to include it? Mr. Jones ( talk) 15:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we should mention that United breaks guitars, LOL. Sorry, couldn't restrain... man with one red shoe 03:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
This is not encyclopedic material. Baggage is damaged everyday around the world and simply because someone put a video on YouTube does not make it notable. Beevo ( talk) 18:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
and looking at other items mentioned in the article, this incident has received more news coverage and is of more signifiance than say Westin partnering with United. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian.moritz ( talk • contribs) 19:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Reading Undue Weight it applies only to opinion and viewpoints. This incident is neither an opinion nor a viewpoint. Besides, the huge media coverage across the globe makes this a big deal. Granted, it not the most important event in the history of United airlines, but looking at all the other news items in the list or the incident table with most entries not saying more than just the flight number, I cannot see how this is undue weight. If all the other items would be exclusively about important events such as bankruptcy or major air plane crashes I could unerstand that in comparison this incident pales. But that is not the case here. Maybe we should move this item to a new customer relations section, because this incident tells a lot about how the public perceives United Airlines (and other legacy carriers). —Preceding unsigned comment added by BoldFrontier ( talk • contribs) 02:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I do not work for United and have no stock in the company. See my comments above. Centpacrr ( talk) 11:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
As some have noted, United's (and pretty much all other airlines in America other than Southwest, Allegiant, Alaska, Jetblue, and Hawaiin) have had their stocks jump up 10-15% one day only for it fall the same amount a couple days later. At present, the airline stock market is extremly volatile due to oil, the economy, and incompetence in management, not due to one viral video that probably had no impact on who flies/invests in United, as those people are looking for either a cheap flight (passenger), or a investment that will make a return on their money (investor).-- 76.121.4.143 ( talk) 03:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
United Airlines was founded in 1926 and not 1927 like it's writing in the infobox. Please change the information. Check the link here on the official website:
http://www.united.com/page/article/0,6867,2296,00.html
FRED ( talk) 13:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I think NRT is seasonal focus city! Because they cut direct service some cities (PEK and TPE) and now be service via NRT. So I already change main page!
!!!
Agreed, this is dictated by United stating so, not by one person thinking so. For instance, SEA serves SFO, LAX, IAD, ORD, DEN, GEG, MWH but it's not a focus city because UA doesn't deem it so. Beevo ( talk) 17:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone provide a source stating that the Airbus A320s will replace the 737s? Regards. Snoozlepet ( talk) 04:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
As I said I know that my first hand doesn't count. No new aircraft orders need to be placed. With the closure of TED the fleet of A320's has been transferred back to United. The sources show that the A320's are replacing the 737's. 66.247.208.72 ( talk) 17:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Some 737s were replaced with A320s, others with E-170s, CR7s, A319s, and 757s. And some 320s replace 737s, while others are in the rotate with… E-170s, CR7s, A319s, and 757s. ORD-IAD sees 767s and 777s as well. So while it's not false that A320s have taken the place of 737s, it is false, or at least deeply misleading, to characterize a general purpose fleet renewal and aircraft utilization changes as a specific replacement program.- choster 04:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
"That struggle cost the airline $1 billion, and provoked a long period of labor unrest and financial deterioration that culminated in bankruptcy nearly 20 years later." This seems to be an opinion rather than a substantiated fact. Can anyone flag this and give it a citation?
If the planes were never delivered, how were they retired? Propose removing this entry. Beevo ( talk) 18:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The only noted unsubstantiated item on this entry is the ending of free meals. I spent awhile searching for a source but was unable to find one. Propose removing this reference if there is no citation as it's unverifiable. Beevo ( talk) 05:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I added a retired fleet box in the Fleet section. If there is more to add or some errors, please correct :)
There are a few problems.
1. My father flew Viscounts for Untied long after 1947, as I recall they retired the last in 1967 or 68. 2. United sold it's Boeing 377s in the mid-1950s 3. United ceased flying the Convairs in the late 1960s (1968?). 4. The DC-6 was not retired until 1967, it didn't enter service until 1947. 5. The DC-7 did not enter service until AFTER 1951, UAL retired it's 7s in the early 1960s. 6. United did not fly Ford Tri-Motors in 1950. 7. United did not fly the BAE Swallow. 8. United did not fly the JN-4D. 9. The Beech 1900 did not fly until 1982. Guys flying in 1940 would have loved them. 10. Air Inter, not UAL was the launch customer for the A320. 11. The launch customer for the 737-500 was Southwest. 12. Pan Am was the first airlines to order the DC-8.
There are a few more problems. For example, my father flew B-747s for UAL but I do not recall UAL ever operating the SP. Mark Lincoln ( talk) 13:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The "Swallow" flown by Varney was the Swallow J-5, not a British product. It was a designed by Matty Laird and Lloyd Sterman.
I don't know what source you have for the JN-4, but Jack Knight, a famous UAL Captain, was an early air mail pilot who flew DH-4s.
A photo of Knight with DH-4 appeared in the official history of UAL printed in the very early 1960s. Mark Lincoln ( talk)
Qoute from Dave's Website:
"In the spring of 2008, Sons of Maxwell were traveling to Nebraska for a one-week tour and my Taylor guitar was witnessed being thrown by United Airlines baggage handlers in Chicago. I discovered later that the $3500 guitar was severely damaged. They didn’t deny the experience occurred but for nine months the various people I communicated with put the responsibility for dealing with the damage on everyone other than themselves and finally said they would do nothing to compensate me for my loss. So I promised the last person to finally say “no” to compensation (Ms. Irlweg) that I would write and produce three songs about my experience with United Airlines and make videos for each to be viewed online by anyone in the world. United: Song 1 is the first of those songs. United: Song 2 has been written and video production is underway. United: Song 3 is coming. I promise."
His music regarding the United incident was widely veiwed recieving over 7 million views for the first track only. Public perception of United airlines began to take a wrong turn but United have since patched things up with UA.
http://www.davecarrollmusic.com/story/united-breaks-guitars —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charldeegee ( talk • contribs) 20:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
First off, maybe only a sentence linking in the pop culture section wikilinking the to the song's page is all this needs. Also, your edit is a direct quote from the website and your extra comments don't follow WP:NPOV Spikydan1 ( talk) 20:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I suggest making a seperate article or a seperate section for the merger between UA and CO; just like the Delta-Northwest merger. Thanks! Snoozlepet ( talk) 01:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
A section is fine. does not need a new article - Tracer9999 ( talk) 10:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The 'accidents and incidents' section has numerous omissions. For example the first two UAL accidents in the 1940s, flight 16, 11/04/1940, and 21, 12/04/1940 are missing. Mark Lincoln ( talk) 17:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
San Antonio (SAT) is not a focus city!!! United currently has less than 12 arrivals and departures combined in SAT. All of them are bound from and/or to UA hub cities like Chicago and Denver.
Flights from San Antonio to New Orleans, Kansas City, Oklahoma City and Colorado Springs are operated by Trans States Airlines, which is a United Express carrier. All mainline flights operated by United Airlines link San Antonio to its hub cities.
I had a look at the "source" for UA's so-called "hub" in JFK, and I found its old/unreliable, since it states Air New Zealand has JFK as a "Focus City", though NZ never flew to JFK!. I am sure that source for that source is a copy/paste from a LAX Airport information guide. Therefore I've changed reference of UA's past JFK ops as a "gateway" and added the Verification tags. Sb617 ( Talk) 04:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Multiple sources list a former LAX-JFK route, and discounting a published source entirely because one other point of data is incorrect seems risky - what if we were to do that with the NYTimes or WaPo? Beevo ( talk) 16:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
First comment:
Second comment -- We have good discussion this section:
Third comment:
Thanks for helpings. I will repost NRT after discussion finished! -- B767-500 ( talk) 06:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I make announcement for last call before I make change because I make my proposal change to article. -- B767-500 ( talk) 06:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I planning to add Smisek insulting comment which offend it's own Star Alliance partner, US Airways:
Maybe this kind poor behavior causes US Airways to left Star Alliance, because bullying by big boys. -- B767-500 ( talk) 06:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
are you ESL? I couldn't even understand what you said on the comment. besides its unnecessary drama that doesn't really add anything to the article. - Tracer9999 ( talk) 04:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The article states that Newark will be retained as a hub but MSNBC claims that Continental is selling its landing rights to Southwest... [3] 71.163.176.9 ( talk) 02:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Yay!! The merger was official closed today....however please do not put any Continental information into this article nor change the logo for UA until things are finalized. Both carriers will continue to operate seperately until a single, operating certificate is achieved. This is sometime in 2011. If you have any problems, please discuss any changes here. Snoozlepet ( talk) 04:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
It appears that the 737NGs have been double counted in the combined fleet. The 737NG just refers to any 737-600,700,800, or 900ER (extentded range). These planes have been double counted in the total number of planes in the fleet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.51.253 ( talk) 20:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The infobox now reads that the combined United/Continental fleet size is "715" but provides no source for this. The detailed list of every aircraft in the combined fleet posted on Planespotters.net, however, gives the number as being "612". This disparity needs to be reconciled by someone who knows more about the correct numbers than I do. Centpacrr ( talk) 20:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
This article is about the airline, and not the parent company United Continental Holdings. I changed the infobox to show a fleet of 360, which is consistent with the table in the article. Gfcvoice ( talk) 21:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I have been watching this also, and I have noticed inconsistencies in the numbers. I have been on when the specific plane numbers were right but the total was wrong (improper addition), and other times the total was right but the individual planes had incorrect numbers. The current United fleet is 360, while the combined UA/CO fleet is 708. KZiel —Preceding undated comment added 05:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC).
There is absolutely no reason to show domestic business, as there is no such thing. Just because international planes fly domestic routes doesn't mean the seats are somehow transformed to domestic seats. Kz1123 ( talk) 02:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
For reasons of length (the history section is nearly as long as History of Delta Air Lines), and for the fact that UAL is to be significantly changed post-merger, perhaps the History section could be split to History of United Airlines (1926–2009), with all sections save "Merger with Continental Airlines" moved, and a summary left in place. Additionally, some of the "old" United details could be included, such as old Brand slogans, pre-merger Destination, Fleet, and Cabin info, as well (given that the brand is being changed, and destination and fleet info will be combined between UA and CO). For your thoughts, Enginesmax ( talk) 23:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be best to wait until customer day one before splitting the article. KZiel
I would like to make a suggestion about splitting the article of United: Under the merger conpany website of unitedcontinentalholdings.com under media center there is a corporate fact sheet that explains from the lounges, partners, routes, employees, frequent fliers, corporate and putting fleet numbers around 1254 planes counting regional planes (United fleet is as big as problably 3 airlines combined if counting reginonal airplanes) I suggest to spilt the article when the FAA give United one operating certificate (post merger, with gives plenty of time for details, frequent flier programs, routes, partners, codeshares, numbers and so forth) the website link of the fact sheet to verify my claims of planes and employees and so forth is : http://www.unitedcontinentalholdings.com/index.php?section=media
Hope this helps to the community in confirming numbers and detils of the post merger of these two great airlines beginning an endeavor that is worth of calling "a titanic merger for the 21st century". arivera
I think we should wait till both United and Continental officially combine operations before splitting this article up. - Compdude123 ( talk) 01:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I think they should be split but only when they come under one operating licence.
-- 82.71.16.228 ( talk) 11:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
This article is about United Airlines, ie, the airline. The airline is owned by a company called United Continental Holdings.
Nearly all information regarding the merger with Continental is irrelevant to this article, and should be contained in the United Continental Holdings article. Gfcvoice ( talk) 20:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
From the United Continental Holdings article: "UCH plans to dissolve its Continental Airlines, Inc. subsidiary in 2012 when both carriers operate with a single FAA Operations Certificate under United Air Lines, Inc." 20:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfcvoice ( talk • contribs)
There is no "new United" and "old United". There are two airlines, United Airlines and Continental Airlines. Both of these airlines are owned by a company called United Continental Holdings. Gfcvoice ( talk) 00:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
There is no need to do anything now. Ultimately this article title (at least) will need to transition to whatever is United Airlines next December (2011). The history section can refer to other main articles about history, if the article is too long, otherwise. But nothing should be done until it shakes out. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 12:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Not sure I understand the issue with keeping the old UA logo on the page and why the new logo can't be displayed just as it would if United had changed the logo without a merger. United has planes with the new logo in service as of this date (12/25/2010) and is in the process of changing the rest of its signage, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.220.250 ( talk) 16:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
The tulip has a reprieve, at least until customer day one. Signage is being replaced in SFO, a United hub, the fleet is being re-painted, sorry the facts are the facts are the facts. I would wait until customer day one. After that, there is no-excuse not to change it. -- Drexmacc ( talk) 00:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Just checked the United website and the new globe logo is on there. It's now on this page as well. It's sooooo sad that the tulip is gone. But it's still in this article, just scroll down to the Brand section. DON'T DELETE IT!- Compdude123 ( talk) 17:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
What are the metrics you are using to make the conclusion that "there has been a lot of negative reaction to the new livery"? Obviously you've never gone to college and clearly aren't capable of writing a scholarlly or peer reviewed article.-- Drexmacc ( talk) 22:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The update to show owned/leased/contracted is quite misleading for a few reasons. First, the owned/leased information is incorrect - United does not own all of their fleet (for example N532UA is leased). Second, the contracted information is incorrect - these are not planes contracted for United Airlines, they are doing business as United Express but wholly owned by other companies that are not part of United Continental Holdings Inc. Believe this information should be removed as it's both misleading and inaccurate. Plan to do so unless there are objections. Beevo ( talk) 15:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Can someone (especially those near a UA/CO hub) volunteer to take a picture of the ugly livery a United widebody or 747 (like this one on sfgate.com) and post for the airticle? I mean, we need a non-copyrighted image. Thanks. -- Inetpuppy ( talk) 16:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Does any know the new slogan for United since they changed the logo? Snoozlepet ( talk) 21:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone know how United will rank their hubs by size after the merger is completed? I know that Houston will become the largest hub, O'Hare will be second-largest, and Newark the third-largest...but what about Denver, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Cleveland, Guam, and Narita? I know that some have already been ranked as if Continental and United are already combined. Can anyone verify? Thanks! Snoozlepet ( talk) 06:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I have some confusing issues, which can it see on this edit:
HkCaGu is best editor and he make this comment: "UA flt number doesnt mean it's not operated by CO". So, how to tell is CO flight pretending to be an UA flight in 000 to 999 range? -- B767-500 ( talk) 07:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Now that a SOC has been achieved, United's fleet totals and hubs must be edited in the introductory paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.174.231 ( talk) 21:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The livery info needs to be removed from the fleet table as per This Policy. Thanks -- JetBlast ( talk) 22:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
We need to somehow merge Continental's destinations into the United destinations page. If someone have time, please do. Snoozlepet ( talk) 00:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Is the new United slogan really "You're going to like where we land!", because I don't remember an official announcement declaring a new slogan?-- 14940674md ( talk) 01:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
This airline has been around for the better part of a century, yet three of the four intro paragraphs deal exclusively with the Continental merger. An intro is meant to provide a broad overview of a topic. It's not a place to cram in details about one recent event. Moncrief ( talk) 02:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I reverted the split of the history section into a separate article History of United Airlines. This has been discussed before but there wasn't a consensus and several people (including me) suggested to wait till both UA and CO combined operations. But one user went ahead and did this already without even discussing it here and waiting for a consensus. I reverted it also because I'm not a big fan of having history sections split off into separate articles; if the parent article is too long don't get rid of the history section, instead shorten all the other sections and especially the inflight services section so that it doesn't appear to be written by the airline's marketing dept. (The cabin section of this article is one of the sections that screams "ADVERTISEMENT!" all over it.) Anyway, if you didn't like my decision, don't start an edit war over something as stupid as this. Thanks, Compdude123 ( talk) 05:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I get that we have to have at least one photo of a UA plane in CO colors on this page, but how come we have absolutely ZERO in the Saul Bass livery, a paint job UA used for 20 years and is actually..theirs?? Also, it seems that certain posters are deleting a lot of United pictures with the Tulip and information from pre-merger and replacing them with the continental livery and continental information. Continental pics and info should go to the CO page, while United info/actual United liveries remains here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.11.73 ( talk) 03:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
United airlines has two more hubs that were not listed. They're Frankfurt International Airport and London Heathrow International Airport Source: http://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/travel/airport/maps/default.aspx 75.39.12.42 ( talk) 02:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
How can LHR and FRA be hubs when they only fly to other UA hub cities? This source http://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/travel/airport/maps/default.aspx list LHR and FRA as hubs but its press releases and the Star Alliance's United page does not list them as hubs. 68.113.122.83 ( talk) 00:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Other editor put incorrect ticker, so have to be removal it: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=United_Airlines&diff=500105132&oldid=499988301
-- B767-500 ( talk) 04:51, 1 July 2012 (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 | Archive 4 |
Why not list project Bojinka on the United Airlines page? If it went off, 8 of their planes would have been destroyed over the ocean on January 21 and 22 1995. I think it should be listed as the project was a potential threat to the airline and its customers. WhisperToMe 03:59, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
PDX should not be listed as a focus city, as UAL doesn't provide service from PDX to cities other than its hubs.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Groeneman ( talk • contribs) 16:58, 4 September 2005
Why aren't United Airlines' new logo pictured anywhere? The old gray/blue logo was replaced with a new all blue logo. vw12 November 13, 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.13 ( talk • contribs) 06:28, 13 November 2005
Narita (Tokyo) is NOT a hub! If anything it is a secondary/focus city even though UA technically does not have them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.128.172 ( talk • contribs) 15:53, 15 December 2005
I also took the liberty of removing Hong Kong as a focus city, because United doesn't seem to have any extraordinary service there. I'm tempted to remove Honolulu and JFK as well, since each only has one route beyond UA's hubs and focus cities, but those are tougher cases so might as well leave them. - Sekicho 21:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
..."multiple destinations" meaning Ho Chi Minh City and Singapore. Does two flights a day make an airport a focus city? Or, in the case of JFK, one (LHR)? Or in the case of HNL, one (KIX)? I'm kinda confused as to how we're defining things here. Sekicho 04:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Based on the discussion over at WikiProject Airlines, it seems that NRT is the only "focus city" UA currently has. Any objections? - Sekicho 19:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Didn't they recently add SAT as a focus city? J1729 20:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, UA considers NRT a hub, lots of connections but i guess the 14 flights a day keeps people from opening their eyes to what a hub is. Fact is not all hubs need 300+ dailies. I'm not going to change the table as there will be no more focus cities for everyone to see, but HKG and SEA are...per UA. Whatever, someone who has the facts changes something for the better and some highschooler or enthusiast just changes it back. oh well. Fry1234, KORD
You're getting this from the UAL page? I work at UA in routes and planning, and we call HKG and SEA focus cities, and NRT a hub. Fry1234 07:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
For United Airlines, a gateway city is technically a focus city of sorts, United does not operate focus cities a la Delta/American/US Airways and thus cannot have our definition of a focus city subject to the same categorization as the three airlines mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.216.170 ( talk • contribs)
I see your point about using public-domain sources, but when we work on SEA and HKG, we call them focus operations, solely due to the reason they connect and have FA domiciles. Well, the NRT-SEA flight isnt going anywhere. I really dont care if the page says SEA and HKG are focus ops, just wanted to clear it up. United has plans for HKG and SEA, which i wish i could discuss on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.216.170 ( talk • contribs)
well, ive worked for UA 24 years now and work in routes and planning, and "we", meanign the department, call the cities focus operations. United and I are not we...come on...after taking paycuts like "we"...us employees did..United and I are far from chum. Fry1234 18:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
no, the ip is my personal, the IT department monitors that sort of activity and id get into a bad situation. fry1234
According to USA Today San Antonio is referred to by United as both a focus city and a "hublet" It boasts 12 non stop destinations from San Antonio International which is more than from any non hub city. These cities include New Orleans, Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Colorado Springs, and other destinations which are not United hubs. Passengers are also connecting in San Antonio which is a first for that airport.
Why isn't SEA a focus city of UA? It operates the majority of the flights out of SEA to UA hubs. Bucs2004 03:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
You just contradicted your argument. If you didn't your argument doesn't make sense. SEA was never designated a focus city. -- Physicq210 18:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you work for United or have any authority to post what is or is not part of the airline's network? Am i missing something? I just want to know why you seem so "pushy" about what can be included on this page. About SEA and other focus ops, just cause it isnt specified in the annual report means its null and void? So back in 2000, when UA had over 100 daily operations into the airport, it wasn't a focus city?...weird, because i personally remember doing some of the scheduling for the SEA focus city, as it was called in meetings by people higher than me and many others. I'm not ridiculing you, so take no offense to this post. I just want to know why a high school kid is the "boss" of a page about a company with 80 years in business. Fry1234 05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
And one more thing, i see you've done lots for many different topics and i dont mean to criticize your age, as it doesnt matter. my son is in high school and the only reason i became a member on this site is due to the fact that he was doing a report on UA and told me to look at this site. i was just wondering as to why it seemed so hard to get a point across on this page. Fry1234 05:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
"Vicious personal attack"? wow... okay... and 2000 was far from a glory year. Fry1234 05:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
you were kidding about the personal attack thing? i read my post over and over and i find the viciousness you say to be not included. Fry1234 05:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC) I know we talk of United now, and not in 2000, but SEA is a focus city until the regional connections leave.
by many? people on this site are that touchy? well, okay, this is silly, we are the only contributors to this page on a regular basis, by that i mean daily, correct? Fry1234 05:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Why did you retract your statement? your interpretation of the facts isnt flawed, nor is mine. just conflicting views Fry1234 05:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, I see your point at how SEA is a focus city. However, Wikipedia has a guideline called WP:RS, which (sort of) requires reliable and readily assessible sources to be available to back a claim. It also has a policy called WP:OR, which bars original research from being used. I'm not saying you're wrong, but unfortunately you need to cite a source to back your side of the argument. -- physicq210 05:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
oh, i understand where they come from with that. Fry1234 05:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
i was saying i understand where Wikipedia comes from with the readily available sourcing on subjects. Fry1234 06:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey Fry1234 and Physicq210, perhaps it is time to cool off a little bit. Take a little bit of time off and get some perspective on this.. Its just an encyclopedia. Cliffb 18:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I spent some time wrangling the fleet chart. Its got some pretty extensive formatting changes. Usually I'd be a bit more bold, but I'd like feedback before moving it over to the article... Cliffb 18:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Aren't the 747s still sometimes used interhub. I know I flew a 744 from SFO to ORD (coming back from PVG) in 2003. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
UAAC (
talk •
contribs) 23:11, 2006 August 12.
I think the additions to the bankruptcy section by 67.163.8.43 should be reverted -- they're far too detailed and go beyond the scope of the article, and disrupt the flow. — Cliffb 07:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it should be reverted. While the added information has lots of value, it's too lengthy, plus some of the information isn't correct.
Fry1234
21:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Is it necessary to categorize all the links in the external links section, or can we jsut consolidate them? -- physicq210 18:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I judged this article on 7 criteria:
For an article to pass references, I look for around 20ish on most GA contenders. I'd almost look for more on this, but only because it's so long. Regardless, this article has only 1 ref, and that's not good enough. I also failed the well written requirement, for 2 things. The lead is poorly written, and does not summarize the article very well, and even though there are other articles linked to, I'd want the beginning paragraph to at least have a couple of sentences, rather than just the links. If these issues are resolved, feel free to message me on my talk page, I'd be happy to re-evaluate the article. -- PresN 01:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
United Airline should purchase 747-8 so they can fly more routes farther and replace their very old 747's. The 747-8 is really more econmic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eclaw ( talk • contribs) 22:02, 31 October 2006
In addition to today's "activity", I have found POV addiotion on Dec. 6 of a similar tone. Check IP's beginning with a 6 especially (the ones I've seen so far have come from 67, 68, and 69). Thanks. - BillCJ 06:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I am a 10 year employee at United Airlines and I have insider knowledge as to what happened there. When I go and try to add FACTS to the articles someone comes and erases it. Is this person a UAL employee like I am? I think not. Why change what I am writing on there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TRIPxCORE ( talk • contribs) 06:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
I gave a source for my Summer From Hell contribution and now you still erase it on me! Wikipedia is biased and a fraud! - TRIPxCORE
So where are the sources listed and cited for what has already been written in the UAL article may I ask? - TRIPxCORE
As a employee at United, which none of you happen to be, the veracity of my contributions cannot be disputed by any of you. None of you can come close to knowing the truth's that I know. Yet you haphazardly erase what I write and give a bunch of ridiculous reasons as to why you did it. So I go along with your ridiculous rule and find a source and still you erase what I write. Now I am told that just because I have a source that doesn't automatically guarantee inclusion!! First I needed a source and now I need one that can be verified by someone? By who, you? It's been made quite clear to me that Wikipedia kowtows to big business, is afraid to let the truth be known, is biased and a huge fraud! There isn't one piece of that UAL article that was already written before I got here that has a verifiable source attached to it. Now the rule gets implemented for me for trying to tell the truth. I will make sure to tell everyone what Wikipedia stands for and that if the truth is to be known, to avoid this place at all costs because it's biased! - TRIPxCORE
- you are right that the rest does not have sources. However, to this point no one has questioned the validity of those sections or facts, so they have remained.
This is what you wrote to me. So who may I ask questioned the validity of what I wrote then? - TRIPxCORE
The only way to write the article is to tell the truth, which is what I did. It may sound harsh because the actions of that time were harsh. What I wrote is exactly the way it happened. I wrote it in a neutral way. I didn't go and say that the things were happening to me personally even though they were. I wrote it as an outside observer. I think it requires no change. Joe 00:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I already gave a "verifiable" source for the "Summer From Hell" contribution. Joe 02:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-unitedday3-story,0,4838025.story?coll=chi-unitednavover-misc Joe 03:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Here is the source:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-unitedday3-story,0,4838025.story?coll=chi-unitednavover-misc
Joe 03:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
We need cleanup on the "travel classes" section. Big top 16:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand this flag!?! There are only two 'citation needed' flags ... why would only two flags trigger the whole article to be discredited??? -- Inetpup 06:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
This sentence was removed by User:FCYTravis: 'However, the introduction of this service has created unbalanced load factors between the middle of the aircraft (Economy Plus), which is often underutilized, and the rear of the plane (UnitedEconomy), which often operate at crush load.' The reason given was: (rm nonsense sentence - the whole point of E+ is that it's a premium product over regular Economy offered only to those who have paid more or who have earned access through loyalty.)
I propose adding something that states that Economy Plus has caused UnitedEconomy to suffer ... United agents will only seat UnitedEconomy passengers in Economy Plus once seats have been exhausted in UnitedEconomy. This leads to the new UnitedEconomy being inferior to the old UnitedEconomy, which allowed for a more balanced distribution of passengers throughout the aircraft. In other words, United not only introduced a premium product (Economy Plus), but its introduction necessarily led to the downgrade of UnitedEconomy.-- Inetpup 21:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Some guy changed the Incidents section. Do you agree that the table format is good? I think it kinda sucks. It hasn't even been discussed here. -- Inetpup 23:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted the "classes" of Mileage Plus, because this is information available in their site, and is a promotion of the company, which is hard to keep track of, and also to avoid Wikipedia to become a free advertising channel for the company. 200.222.3.3 23:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Global Services modified to note that United does not publish qualification criteria for Global Services program, and that membership is by invitation only. There is no source to cited for the 50k requalification claim. 70.6.214.49 01:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Should we just have a separate article on Mileage Plus--all this info makes the already long article way too long. Gb6819 15:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I also vote for the deletion of the section about the cabin, we're doing free marketing for the company!! 200.222.3.3 23:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe convert to a table-format. I agree this whole thing sounds like an ad. Gb6819 15:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I tried to make it sound less advertisement-like. I, on the contrary to the two above, think it's a good part of the page as the information is valuable to me and [hopefully] other travelers... Sjodenenator ( talk) 09:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Talk:Delta Air Lines#Complaint Links about the removal of the links to the complaints bulletin boards (such as www.unitedcomplaints.com, these complaints bulletin boards are all from one company and have minimal information) from airline articles. I invite you to discuss this change there. -- Matt 01:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
What makes London Heathrow Airport a focus city? I just noticed this today. Actually, someone moved around the hubs, too. 10:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Someone already removed LHR, too. 12:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the edits to this page, estpecially the first section should not be made every time there's a speculation on merger. There have been tons of rumors that have not come to fruition, and are not subject to inclusion in an encyclopaedic article. Every time the United management goes out to any conference, the following scenario occurs.
Mgmt: (talks for 1 hour about changes since Chapeter 11 and business plans).
Reporter: What about consolidation?
Mgmt: Consolidation is good for the industry; a merger may make this company stronger.
Reporter: (writes article folcusing solely on consolidation)
On the other hand, everyone editing missed the Aloha deal... Gb6819 16:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:United mileagepluslogo.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 11:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm inclined to remove the recent news section on the article. Wikipedia is not a site for recent news. Some of the content in there is useful, such as the San Fransisco to Guangzhou route and LA to Shanghai and should be moved elsewhere in the article. But the article didn't even mention Silver Wings before, so is it important to mention its removal? Is the name of the chef designing first class meals important? I don't think it's even notable, the articles written were basically just reannouncing United's press release. -- Matt 14:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I have updated the "In Pop Culture" section to reflect that the setting for The Terminal is actually Los Angeles International Airport but is described in the movie as John F Kennedy International Airport. If you pay attention to gate the Tom Hanks takes up residence at, it is gate 69 which is one of United's gates at LAX ( Martok527 00:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)).
I also updated the reference that stated Chris Tucker was a United Ramp Agent, to read he was a United Mechanic as is seen if you pay close attention to the jump suit he is wearing, and as United strictly differentiates Ramp (CG) and Mechanic (MM) employees ( Martok527 00:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)).
Should we designate Honolulu International Airport as a UA focus city? I mean it does have flights to and from its hubs, non-hubs, and in Japan. Bucs2004 01:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
United is reconfiguring its three class airplanes. They are reducing the number of seats in first and business and (I think) adding seats in coach (possibly by removing some economy plus seats).
The first newly reconfigured 767 will fly on Oct 29 from IAD-FRA. It will have 6 first class seats, 26 lie-flat business seats, and 151 (possibly more?) economy seats. Newly reconfigured 747s and 777s will join the fleet at later dates. Anyone know what the numbers for these reconfigured planes will be and where can we fit that into the fleet size chart? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.179.54 ( talk) 23:28, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
Jendeyoung 20:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
What makes Hong Kong a focus city? I just noticed this recently. It only flies to 2 non-hub cities (Ho Chi Minh City and Singapore) and soon to be 3 of its hubs (Chicago, San Francisco, and soon to be Los Angeles). Bucs2004 16:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Did any of you read the 'United Airlines -- Back from the Brink' article (on page 48, 12/2007 issue) of Air International Magazine? They used a great deal of information from our article that all of you contributed to! Some of it is almost word-for-word! Great job, given that they used us as a reliable source! -- Inetpup ( talk) 06:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The section about codeshare agreements seems to be rather short. For example it does not include UA's codeshare agreement with NZ (Air New Zealand). I'm sure there are many more which are not listed. James Pole ( talk) 06:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
On the San Francisco International Airport article, a user changed the date for UA's SFO-CAN route to begins on June 18, 2009 instead of 2008. Will UA still fly on 6/18/2008 or has it been pushed back a year? Thanks! 74.183.173.237 ( talk) 23:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Inetpup has been using the phrase "premature death" in the sentence "The premature death of Ted will furlough approximately 100 aircraft". I've been trying to change "premature death" to "closure" as I believe premature is a judgment call, not really suitable in the article. Could others weigh in on what appropriate phrasing here would be? -- Matt ( talk) 14:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Please expand the references on all subjects in this article. I've started tagging some questionable statements regarding the Strike of 1985, which is almost entirely unsourced. To maintain neutrality and to ensure reliability, all of these sentences need citations. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds ( talk) 18:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I am working on that now. I have added two links and will have more in the days ahead. EditorASC ( talk) 19:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
For the past couple of days, anon IPs continue to re-add NRT in the infox as a UA focus city. Was NRT ever a focus city or did UA removed it as focus city? 74.183.173.237 ( talk) 03:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I spoke with a UA representative recently who noted they consider NRT a focus city and SEA and HNL gateway cities. 67.170.104.140 ( talk) 07:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
"United has also showed no interest in the Boeing 787 Dreamliner project, also to help deal with current tough economic times, also affecting other major US airlines." Seems to me this is incorrect since UA is lobbying to become a GoldCare partner for 787 maintenance. 67.170.104.140 ( talk) 07:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Added this point. Beevo ( talk) 15:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I have some one who keeps editing without a cite, that united express is ending service RDM-PDX... we just had capacity additions announced recently so it sounds kind of odd... anyways anyone have a ref on this? 72.0.187.239 ( talk) 21:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Was noted as an issue. I moved much of the recent news to the Recent News section - it simply needs chronological organization now. 24.18.142.164 ( talk) 15:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
That phrase will return 7 million hits via Google. United says they are using this video as a part of their training now, so it is even significant to them. The video now has 6 million views. EVERY single major media outlet has reported on it including CNN, Fox, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, etc. Every blogger on the planet has mentioned it. The only reason this has not been included in the article is because some of the editors likely work for United. I cannot believe you have managed to even keep it out of the popular culture section of the article. Whoever you are that's keeping this video about United Airlines out of the article is pretty slick. Eventually Wiki will win, this major development will be indluded in the article and you'll lose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 ( talk) 14:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Propose to remove the images from the fleet list, a non-standard practice which provides to small images to be useful and bloats an already full table particularly on small screen sizes. Comments ? MilborneOne ( talk) 19:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely agree Beevo ( talk) 20:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Removed as there were no objections. Beevo ( talk) 15:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
A number of users are making updates to the fleet numbers based on what must be unsubstantiated information on airline fan websites. For instance, I've had to revert two separate changes which showed that the 737-500 has been removed from the fleet when it's still flying.
Please do not make such changes until the planes are actually removed from the fleet. Beevo ( talk) 15:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Should this be mentioned anywhere in the article? http://cr.yp.to/conferences/iadams.html If not, why not? Could a sentence saying something like "there are reports of problems with compensation for damage to baggage handled by UA [1]" I know the UA PR people won't like it, but is there a real reason not to include it? Mr. Jones ( talk) 15:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we should mention that United breaks guitars, LOL. Sorry, couldn't restrain... man with one red shoe 03:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
This is not encyclopedic material. Baggage is damaged everyday around the world and simply because someone put a video on YouTube does not make it notable. Beevo ( talk) 18:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
and looking at other items mentioned in the article, this incident has received more news coverage and is of more signifiance than say Westin partnering with United. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian.moritz ( talk • contribs) 19:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Reading Undue Weight it applies only to opinion and viewpoints. This incident is neither an opinion nor a viewpoint. Besides, the huge media coverage across the globe makes this a big deal. Granted, it not the most important event in the history of United airlines, but looking at all the other news items in the list or the incident table with most entries not saying more than just the flight number, I cannot see how this is undue weight. If all the other items would be exclusively about important events such as bankruptcy or major air plane crashes I could unerstand that in comparison this incident pales. But that is not the case here. Maybe we should move this item to a new customer relations section, because this incident tells a lot about how the public perceives United Airlines (and other legacy carriers). —Preceding unsigned comment added by BoldFrontier ( talk • contribs) 02:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I do not work for United and have no stock in the company. See my comments above. Centpacrr ( talk) 11:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
As some have noted, United's (and pretty much all other airlines in America other than Southwest, Allegiant, Alaska, Jetblue, and Hawaiin) have had their stocks jump up 10-15% one day only for it fall the same amount a couple days later. At present, the airline stock market is extremly volatile due to oil, the economy, and incompetence in management, not due to one viral video that probably had no impact on who flies/invests in United, as those people are looking for either a cheap flight (passenger), or a investment that will make a return on their money (investor).-- 76.121.4.143 ( talk) 03:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
United Airlines was founded in 1926 and not 1927 like it's writing in the infobox. Please change the information. Check the link here on the official website:
http://www.united.com/page/article/0,6867,2296,00.html
FRED ( talk) 13:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I think NRT is seasonal focus city! Because they cut direct service some cities (PEK and TPE) and now be service via NRT. So I already change main page!
!!!
Agreed, this is dictated by United stating so, not by one person thinking so. For instance, SEA serves SFO, LAX, IAD, ORD, DEN, GEG, MWH but it's not a focus city because UA doesn't deem it so. Beevo ( talk) 17:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone provide a source stating that the Airbus A320s will replace the 737s? Regards. Snoozlepet ( talk) 04:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
As I said I know that my first hand doesn't count. No new aircraft orders need to be placed. With the closure of TED the fleet of A320's has been transferred back to United. The sources show that the A320's are replacing the 737's. 66.247.208.72 ( talk) 17:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Some 737s were replaced with A320s, others with E-170s, CR7s, A319s, and 757s. And some 320s replace 737s, while others are in the rotate with… E-170s, CR7s, A319s, and 757s. ORD-IAD sees 767s and 777s as well. So while it's not false that A320s have taken the place of 737s, it is false, or at least deeply misleading, to characterize a general purpose fleet renewal and aircraft utilization changes as a specific replacement program.- choster 04:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
"That struggle cost the airline $1 billion, and provoked a long period of labor unrest and financial deterioration that culminated in bankruptcy nearly 20 years later." This seems to be an opinion rather than a substantiated fact. Can anyone flag this and give it a citation?
If the planes were never delivered, how were they retired? Propose removing this entry. Beevo ( talk) 18:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The only noted unsubstantiated item on this entry is the ending of free meals. I spent awhile searching for a source but was unable to find one. Propose removing this reference if there is no citation as it's unverifiable. Beevo ( talk) 05:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I added a retired fleet box in the Fleet section. If there is more to add or some errors, please correct :)
There are a few problems.
1. My father flew Viscounts for Untied long after 1947, as I recall they retired the last in 1967 or 68. 2. United sold it's Boeing 377s in the mid-1950s 3. United ceased flying the Convairs in the late 1960s (1968?). 4. The DC-6 was not retired until 1967, it didn't enter service until 1947. 5. The DC-7 did not enter service until AFTER 1951, UAL retired it's 7s in the early 1960s. 6. United did not fly Ford Tri-Motors in 1950. 7. United did not fly the BAE Swallow. 8. United did not fly the JN-4D. 9. The Beech 1900 did not fly until 1982. Guys flying in 1940 would have loved them. 10. Air Inter, not UAL was the launch customer for the A320. 11. The launch customer for the 737-500 was Southwest. 12. Pan Am was the first airlines to order the DC-8.
There are a few more problems. For example, my father flew B-747s for UAL but I do not recall UAL ever operating the SP. Mark Lincoln ( talk) 13:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The "Swallow" flown by Varney was the Swallow J-5, not a British product. It was a designed by Matty Laird and Lloyd Sterman.
I don't know what source you have for the JN-4, but Jack Knight, a famous UAL Captain, was an early air mail pilot who flew DH-4s.
A photo of Knight with DH-4 appeared in the official history of UAL printed in the very early 1960s. Mark Lincoln ( talk)
Qoute from Dave's Website:
"In the spring of 2008, Sons of Maxwell were traveling to Nebraska for a one-week tour and my Taylor guitar was witnessed being thrown by United Airlines baggage handlers in Chicago. I discovered later that the $3500 guitar was severely damaged. They didn’t deny the experience occurred but for nine months the various people I communicated with put the responsibility for dealing with the damage on everyone other than themselves and finally said they would do nothing to compensate me for my loss. So I promised the last person to finally say “no” to compensation (Ms. Irlweg) that I would write and produce three songs about my experience with United Airlines and make videos for each to be viewed online by anyone in the world. United: Song 1 is the first of those songs. United: Song 2 has been written and video production is underway. United: Song 3 is coming. I promise."
His music regarding the United incident was widely veiwed recieving over 7 million views for the first track only. Public perception of United airlines began to take a wrong turn but United have since patched things up with UA.
http://www.davecarrollmusic.com/story/united-breaks-guitars —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charldeegee ( talk • contribs) 20:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
First off, maybe only a sentence linking in the pop culture section wikilinking the to the song's page is all this needs. Also, your edit is a direct quote from the website and your extra comments don't follow WP:NPOV Spikydan1 ( talk) 20:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I suggest making a seperate article or a seperate section for the merger between UA and CO; just like the Delta-Northwest merger. Thanks! Snoozlepet ( talk) 01:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
A section is fine. does not need a new article - Tracer9999 ( talk) 10:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The 'accidents and incidents' section has numerous omissions. For example the first two UAL accidents in the 1940s, flight 16, 11/04/1940, and 21, 12/04/1940 are missing. Mark Lincoln ( talk) 17:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
San Antonio (SAT) is not a focus city!!! United currently has less than 12 arrivals and departures combined in SAT. All of them are bound from and/or to UA hub cities like Chicago and Denver.
Flights from San Antonio to New Orleans, Kansas City, Oklahoma City and Colorado Springs are operated by Trans States Airlines, which is a United Express carrier. All mainline flights operated by United Airlines link San Antonio to its hub cities.
I had a look at the "source" for UA's so-called "hub" in JFK, and I found its old/unreliable, since it states Air New Zealand has JFK as a "Focus City", though NZ never flew to JFK!. I am sure that source for that source is a copy/paste from a LAX Airport information guide. Therefore I've changed reference of UA's past JFK ops as a "gateway" and added the Verification tags. Sb617 ( Talk) 04:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Multiple sources list a former LAX-JFK route, and discounting a published source entirely because one other point of data is incorrect seems risky - what if we were to do that with the NYTimes or WaPo? Beevo ( talk) 16:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
First comment:
Second comment -- We have good discussion this section:
Third comment:
Thanks for helpings. I will repost NRT after discussion finished! -- B767-500 ( talk) 06:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I make announcement for last call before I make change because I make my proposal change to article. -- B767-500 ( talk) 06:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I planning to add Smisek insulting comment which offend it's own Star Alliance partner, US Airways:
Maybe this kind poor behavior causes US Airways to left Star Alliance, because bullying by big boys. -- B767-500 ( talk) 06:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
are you ESL? I couldn't even understand what you said on the comment. besides its unnecessary drama that doesn't really add anything to the article. - Tracer9999 ( talk) 04:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The article states that Newark will be retained as a hub but MSNBC claims that Continental is selling its landing rights to Southwest... [3] 71.163.176.9 ( talk) 02:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Yay!! The merger was official closed today....however please do not put any Continental information into this article nor change the logo for UA until things are finalized. Both carriers will continue to operate seperately until a single, operating certificate is achieved. This is sometime in 2011. If you have any problems, please discuss any changes here. Snoozlepet ( talk) 04:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
It appears that the 737NGs have been double counted in the combined fleet. The 737NG just refers to any 737-600,700,800, or 900ER (extentded range). These planes have been double counted in the total number of planes in the fleet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.51.253 ( talk) 20:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The infobox now reads that the combined United/Continental fleet size is "715" but provides no source for this. The detailed list of every aircraft in the combined fleet posted on Planespotters.net, however, gives the number as being "612". This disparity needs to be reconciled by someone who knows more about the correct numbers than I do. Centpacrr ( talk) 20:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
This article is about the airline, and not the parent company United Continental Holdings. I changed the infobox to show a fleet of 360, which is consistent with the table in the article. Gfcvoice ( talk) 21:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I have been watching this also, and I have noticed inconsistencies in the numbers. I have been on when the specific plane numbers were right but the total was wrong (improper addition), and other times the total was right but the individual planes had incorrect numbers. The current United fleet is 360, while the combined UA/CO fleet is 708. KZiel —Preceding undated comment added 05:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC).
There is absolutely no reason to show domestic business, as there is no such thing. Just because international planes fly domestic routes doesn't mean the seats are somehow transformed to domestic seats. Kz1123 ( talk) 02:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
For reasons of length (the history section is nearly as long as History of Delta Air Lines), and for the fact that UAL is to be significantly changed post-merger, perhaps the History section could be split to History of United Airlines (1926–2009), with all sections save "Merger with Continental Airlines" moved, and a summary left in place. Additionally, some of the "old" United details could be included, such as old Brand slogans, pre-merger Destination, Fleet, and Cabin info, as well (given that the brand is being changed, and destination and fleet info will be combined between UA and CO). For your thoughts, Enginesmax ( talk) 23:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be best to wait until customer day one before splitting the article. KZiel
I would like to make a suggestion about splitting the article of United: Under the merger conpany website of unitedcontinentalholdings.com under media center there is a corporate fact sheet that explains from the lounges, partners, routes, employees, frequent fliers, corporate and putting fleet numbers around 1254 planes counting regional planes (United fleet is as big as problably 3 airlines combined if counting reginonal airplanes) I suggest to spilt the article when the FAA give United one operating certificate (post merger, with gives plenty of time for details, frequent flier programs, routes, partners, codeshares, numbers and so forth) the website link of the fact sheet to verify my claims of planes and employees and so forth is : http://www.unitedcontinentalholdings.com/index.php?section=media
Hope this helps to the community in confirming numbers and detils of the post merger of these two great airlines beginning an endeavor that is worth of calling "a titanic merger for the 21st century". arivera
I think we should wait till both United and Continental officially combine operations before splitting this article up. - Compdude123 ( talk) 01:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I think they should be split but only when they come under one operating licence.
-- 82.71.16.228 ( talk) 11:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
This article is about United Airlines, ie, the airline. The airline is owned by a company called United Continental Holdings.
Nearly all information regarding the merger with Continental is irrelevant to this article, and should be contained in the United Continental Holdings article. Gfcvoice ( talk) 20:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
From the United Continental Holdings article: "UCH plans to dissolve its Continental Airlines, Inc. subsidiary in 2012 when both carriers operate with a single FAA Operations Certificate under United Air Lines, Inc." 20:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfcvoice ( talk • contribs)
There is no "new United" and "old United". There are two airlines, United Airlines and Continental Airlines. Both of these airlines are owned by a company called United Continental Holdings. Gfcvoice ( talk) 00:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
There is no need to do anything now. Ultimately this article title (at least) will need to transition to whatever is United Airlines next December (2011). The history section can refer to other main articles about history, if the article is too long, otherwise. But nothing should be done until it shakes out. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 12:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Not sure I understand the issue with keeping the old UA logo on the page and why the new logo can't be displayed just as it would if United had changed the logo without a merger. United has planes with the new logo in service as of this date (12/25/2010) and is in the process of changing the rest of its signage, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.220.250 ( talk) 16:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
The tulip has a reprieve, at least until customer day one. Signage is being replaced in SFO, a United hub, the fleet is being re-painted, sorry the facts are the facts are the facts. I would wait until customer day one. After that, there is no-excuse not to change it. -- Drexmacc ( talk) 00:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Just checked the United website and the new globe logo is on there. It's now on this page as well. It's sooooo sad that the tulip is gone. But it's still in this article, just scroll down to the Brand section. DON'T DELETE IT!- Compdude123 ( talk) 17:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
What are the metrics you are using to make the conclusion that "there has been a lot of negative reaction to the new livery"? Obviously you've never gone to college and clearly aren't capable of writing a scholarlly or peer reviewed article.-- Drexmacc ( talk) 22:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The update to show owned/leased/contracted is quite misleading for a few reasons. First, the owned/leased information is incorrect - United does not own all of their fleet (for example N532UA is leased). Second, the contracted information is incorrect - these are not planes contracted for United Airlines, they are doing business as United Express but wholly owned by other companies that are not part of United Continental Holdings Inc. Believe this information should be removed as it's both misleading and inaccurate. Plan to do so unless there are objections. Beevo ( talk) 15:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Can someone (especially those near a UA/CO hub) volunteer to take a picture of the ugly livery a United widebody or 747 (like this one on sfgate.com) and post for the airticle? I mean, we need a non-copyrighted image. Thanks. -- Inetpuppy ( talk) 16:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Does any know the new slogan for United since they changed the logo? Snoozlepet ( talk) 21:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone know how United will rank their hubs by size after the merger is completed? I know that Houston will become the largest hub, O'Hare will be second-largest, and Newark the third-largest...but what about Denver, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Cleveland, Guam, and Narita? I know that some have already been ranked as if Continental and United are already combined. Can anyone verify? Thanks! Snoozlepet ( talk) 06:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I have some confusing issues, which can it see on this edit:
HkCaGu is best editor and he make this comment: "UA flt number doesnt mean it's not operated by CO". So, how to tell is CO flight pretending to be an UA flight in 000 to 999 range? -- B767-500 ( talk) 07:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Now that a SOC has been achieved, United's fleet totals and hubs must be edited in the introductory paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.174.231 ( talk) 21:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The livery info needs to be removed from the fleet table as per This Policy. Thanks -- JetBlast ( talk) 22:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
We need to somehow merge Continental's destinations into the United destinations page. If someone have time, please do. Snoozlepet ( talk) 00:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Is the new United slogan really "You're going to like where we land!", because I don't remember an official announcement declaring a new slogan?-- 14940674md ( talk) 01:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
This airline has been around for the better part of a century, yet three of the four intro paragraphs deal exclusively with the Continental merger. An intro is meant to provide a broad overview of a topic. It's not a place to cram in details about one recent event. Moncrief ( talk) 02:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I reverted the split of the history section into a separate article History of United Airlines. This has been discussed before but there wasn't a consensus and several people (including me) suggested to wait till both UA and CO combined operations. But one user went ahead and did this already without even discussing it here and waiting for a consensus. I reverted it also because I'm not a big fan of having history sections split off into separate articles; if the parent article is too long don't get rid of the history section, instead shorten all the other sections and especially the inflight services section so that it doesn't appear to be written by the airline's marketing dept. (The cabin section of this article is one of the sections that screams "ADVERTISEMENT!" all over it.) Anyway, if you didn't like my decision, don't start an edit war over something as stupid as this. Thanks, Compdude123 ( talk) 05:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I get that we have to have at least one photo of a UA plane in CO colors on this page, but how come we have absolutely ZERO in the Saul Bass livery, a paint job UA used for 20 years and is actually..theirs?? Also, it seems that certain posters are deleting a lot of United pictures with the Tulip and information from pre-merger and replacing them with the continental livery and continental information. Continental pics and info should go to the CO page, while United info/actual United liveries remains here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.11.73 ( talk) 03:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
United airlines has two more hubs that were not listed. They're Frankfurt International Airport and London Heathrow International Airport Source: http://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/travel/airport/maps/default.aspx 75.39.12.42 ( talk) 02:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
How can LHR and FRA be hubs when they only fly to other UA hub cities? This source http://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/travel/airport/maps/default.aspx list LHR and FRA as hubs but its press releases and the Star Alliance's United page does not list them as hubs. 68.113.122.83 ( talk) 00:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Other editor put incorrect ticker, so have to be removal it: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=United_Airlines&diff=500105132&oldid=499988301
-- B767-500 ( talk) 04:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)