Talk:Air Serbia

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

Merge to Jat Airways[edit]

no consensus to merge

It's stated at Jat Airways that this carrier was renamed Air Serbia. If this is correct, I don't see the need for having two separate articles dealing with the same topic.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose merge - Yes, Air Serbia is the legal successor to/or re-branded Jat Airways but as I mentioned in the Jat Airways talk page, there's far too much history of JAT (66 years worth) to just rename the article Air Serbia and then devote a single paragraph to it specifically, it could be very confusing to readers. If Aeroput can have its own separate article I don't see why Air Serbia shouldn't be able to. Buttons (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. This will be de facto new carrier, so everything that we have now in old article is unrelated to this company. Also, we have even older Aeroput article, with its own history, so i tottally support new article on this subject. Also, it looks like this will be the end of Jat airways, as most of related data, crew and information's will be completely new. Lets face it. This is new company now. --WhiteWriterspeaks 14:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge New airplanes, new livery, new crew - everything is new.--Strower (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - To me it seems like it is just Jat Airways being renamed to Air Serbia, and ordering a new fleet/expanding destinations. So I don't really see the need for a new article. All that would be involved is renaming the Jat Airways article and add a new section under history explaining the changes and the article continues as normal, nothing about Jat need be deleted. Also having two articles for what is ultimately the same airline (but with a new name) is confusing. Mark999 (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. Although a legal successor in regards to assets (by operation of Serbian company law), Air Serbia is a brand new company with no liabilities. All that has happened is that the assets of JAT Airways AD have been transferred to it. The old JAT AD will remain will all pre 31 July 2013 debts/liabilities and with all current employees. JAT Airways AD will remain 100% owned by the Serbian Government until liquidated. Employees being transferred to Air Serbia will be offered new employment agreements with Air Serbia. As stated by James Hogan during the 1 August 2013 press conference, Air Serbia is a clean sheet of paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.20.50.80 (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, IP, this is great explanation! Clean sheet of paper, new article. --WhiteWriterspeaks 11:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The fact is that is just renamed company and that is official [1] .Jat Airways is not closed or bancrupt company,just renamed company,with new branding,name,managment and livery.Same thing happened after WWII,when was Aeroput.Even IATA code will be still JAT.Also codeshare codes will remain JAT codes.Knightserbia (talk) 05:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - And yet Aeroput has its own article. Not very fair to deny Air Serbia the same treatment. Buttons (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge Although a legal successor of Jat Airways, Air Serbia is a new project, a fresh start in any way and I think it is wrong to mix those two, especially having in mind Jat's rich history which lasted 66 years. It would not be fair to name such a page Air Serbia, for both's sake. --Dekidxb (talk) 2:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment www.air-serbia.com mirrors the Jat Airways website. Do we need another reason for merging? Real life is reflected in Wikipedia, not the converse.--Jetstreamer Talk 01:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, wait for it, i am sure that new site is under construction. They will not keep old name and logo there, trust me... --WhiteWriterspeaks 07:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is just renaming and rebranding, it's still the same company, with codes and slots and everything that was used before. Even the old planes will remain in their property. Also, if Air Serbia needs a new article, then both Yugoslav Airlines and JAT Yugoslav Airlines need new articles, because those were different brands of the same company. Aeroput is different. JAT was a brand new company, that just took over Aeroput's employees, assets, history and everything else. Also, merging of these two articles should be made when Air Serbia brand becomes fully functional, which will not be before October 27th. Wechytee (talk)‚ 09:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You realize that's essentially what just happened using your Aeroput argument right? Air Serbia inherited the employees (most of which will be laid off), aircraft (737s will be retired soon), history, etc. Basically all of Jat's assets minus the management and debts. Not to mention there is a different ownership structure. So it will function as a completely new company. Buttons (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes, but JAT did start as a new company, because Aeroput ceased all operations in 1941 and was left without aircraft and routes. AirSERBIA does not start as a new company, but is renaming of Jat Airways. It only has different ownership structure. It would be like Lufthansa changed it's ownership structure and name in German Airlines and you create a new page. It's still the same company. Second idea (or compromise if you like it) could be merging of Aeroput and Jat Airways pages into one called History of AirSERBIA. Also, AirSERBIA was not founded on 1 August 2013, but 17 June 1927 as Aeroput. Wechytee (talk)‚ 16:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wechytee - what is the source of your statement? I have researched the Serbian Company Register and it does not support your renaming assertion. JAT Airways AD still exists and has not been renamed. JAT Airways is not any way related to Aeroput AD which ceased to formally exist as a result of the Yugoslav communist regime banning all private enterprise in 1946. JAT Jugoslovenski Aerotransport was never a legal continuation of Aeroput AD. Therefore, Aeroput, JAT and Air Serbia should all have separate entries as they are all different legal entities. It would be like saying that Deutsche Lufthansa AG is the legal successor to pre WW2 Deutsche Luft Hansa AG. That is not the case and wikipedia reflects two separate entries for pre and post war entities.
Comment - JAT was not legal continuation of Aeroput, that's why Aeroput has it's own page. Air Serbia IS legal continuation of Jat Airways (although it's just renaming of an existing company), which has 49% Etihad's stake and 51% Serbia's stake. Also, there is no Air Serbia on APR (Serbian Company Register, check if you don't believe) because Air Serbia brand will start either from winter schedule or from 1 January 2014 (there are still conflicting informations about that). This page also has some inaccurate data (Domodevo and Kraljevo are mentioned, whereas noone ever mentioned those two airports). Wechytee (talk)‚ 10:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This is not just a renaming but the establishment of a new company. The deal was structured so that the Serbian Government retains ownership of the old JAT Airways AD and a new company Air Serbia DD is formed which takes over the assets of JAT. I have looked at the Serbian company register and it still shows JAT Airways AD with its old management and 100% Serbian Government ownership. In terms of aviation, the closest analysis is the way that SWISS emerged from Swissair. SWISS used Swissair's planes but it was a new company. Both have seperate entries because they are seperate entities. It is the same with SN Brussels Airlines which emerged from Sabena. They are not the same airline even though they use the same codes and Sabena's old planes. I am not sure what is confusing to people here that an airline can transfer assets like landing rights and slots to a new company. In terms of Serbia, the closest analysis is Mobtel. It had its assets transferred to Mobi 63 (a new company) and that company was then acquired by Telenor. Mobtel and Telenor are two different companies albeit with Telenor having most of the assets of Mobtel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeroput (talk • contribs) 10:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If you search for Mobtel in Wikipedia you get redirected to Telenor Srbija. Check yourself. In that case, Jat Airways and Air Serbia can be merged into one article. Also, Swissair and Sabena did go bankrupt and were liquidated, whereas Jat Airways did not go bankrupt and was not (will not be) liquidated. Wechytee (talk)‚ 10:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks Wechytee. I saw this as well on wikipedia but I just don't have the energy or time to edit non-aviation related articles. Mobi 63, the current Telenor doo, was only founded on 4 April 2006 (as per the Serbian company register). The old Mobtel was founded in 1994. All customers were transferred to Mobi 63 (now Telenor) and Mobtel was left as a "shell". You check it out on the Serbian company register. In relation to JAT Airways AD, for all practical purposes, the company is insolvent with net debts (asset deficit) of Euro 250 million according to press reports. It is only flying through the efforts of the Serbian Government and Serbian Government owned companies choosing not to chase outstanding debts owed JAT Airways and external creditors being paid on time. A classic example of this is Belgrade Airport never chasing JAT Airways AD over unpaid landing fees. If you don't believe me, have a look at Belgrade Airport's financial reports online and you will see how they "provided" for these debts. I doubt very much that the Serbian Government or Etihad want to tip any more into this legal entity. As for the business itself, I agree the airline "business" will be renamed but not the "legal name" of the company. Also, three other ex-JAT companies will also be acquired, these being JAT Tehnika, JAT Catering, and SU-Port (Belgrade Airport ground handling operations). Unconfirmed reports say that the JAT Airways AD will continue to own the old B737-300s (which will effectively leave them in 100% Serbian government ownership) post October 2013 with the intention of leasing them out. Let's us just wait and see what eventuates on the Serbian company register in late October 2013 when Air Serbia starts flying and starts selling tickets on its website. I will check the Serbian company register then.Aeroput (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here is the entry for Air Serbia from the Serbian company register (APR): Air SERBIA, you can see the "founding date" ("Датум оснивања") is given as Feb. 29th, 1992 (this is the date the old JAT was transformed from whatever it was under the old socialist system into a corporation). The company Air Serbia has the same company ID as Jat Airways had. It is the same company.Andrijapfc (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge - New Air Company 49% of company now owns Arab Etihad Airways so its not same any more. Snake bgd 09:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It is the same company, that only got renamed. No need for a separate article and thus disarticulation with company´s history. FkpCascais (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FkpCascais - what is the source of your statement? I have researched the Serbian Company Register and it does not support your renaming assertion. JAT Airways AD still exists and has not been renamed.
  • Oppose merge In my opinion new owners, new logo, new name, new contracts etc, is a new company and that company should have an article of its own. JAT has too much history to be just a paragraph under 'Air Serbia' article. Anon7mous (talk) 12:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well without even having to go far, just seing the source from the article it is clear that what happend is that JAT will be just renamed and a partnership with Ittihad was made. Exemple, here: "Jat Airways to be renamed to Air Serbia in August". FkpCascais (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. I believe that Air Serbia does not sound the death knell for JAT any more that the latter brought an end to Aeroput. There is definite continuity and I believe a single article can cover all periods. Naturally I still say we use the term "JAT" when referring to the airline at any time prior to Air Serbia. The Big Hoof! (talk) 08:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge - two spearate entities. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge - It's the same company, only different name. Check APR (Serbian Business Register Agency). Jat Airways today officialy changed their name to Air Serbia, therefore, two pages should be merged. Wechytee (talk), 12:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge - Here is an official decision from the Serbian Company Registry (APR): For the entry on Air Serbia, under Decisions of the registrar (click on "Одлуке регистратора" if the link does not take you there directly), you will find document nr. БД 116130/2013 (currently the top of the list), if you open it, you will find inside the following: "Промена пословног имена:

Брише се: AKCIONARSKO DRUŠTVO ZA VAZDUŠNI SAOBRAĆAJ JAT AIRWAYS AD BEOGRAD (NOVI BEOGRAD) Уписује се: Akcionarsko društvo za vazdušni saobraćaj Air SERBIA Beograd

Промена скраћеног пословног имена: Брише се: JAT AIRWAYS AD BEOGRAD Уписује се: Air SERBIA a.d. Beograd "

Translated, this is: "Change of business name: Deleted: AKCIONARSKO DRUŠTVO ZA VAZDUŠNI SAOBRAĆAJ JAT AIRWAYS AD BEOGRAD (NOVI BEOGRAD) (CORPORATION FOR AIR TRANSPORTATION JAT AIRWAYS AD BELGRADE (NEW BELGRADE)) Inserted: Akcionarsko društvo za vazdušni saobraćaj Air SERBIA Beograd (Corporation for Air Transportation Air SERBIA Belgrade)

Change of shortened bussiness name: Deleted: JAT AIRWAYS AD BEOGRAD Inserted: Air SERBIA a.d. Beograd "

Everything else (company registration number, date of registration, etc.) has remained the same. Jat Airways and Air Serbia are in all respects legally the same company. It should be noted that this is not the first name change: Jat Airways was previously "Jugoslovenski aerotransport" branded in English as "JAT Yugoslav Airlines". This first name change occured in 2003 or 2004 (I don't remember exactly).

You didn´t signed your comment, but you are right, JAT Yugoslav Airlines was renamed to Jat Airways in 2003. FkpCascais (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yes, I forgot to sign. Point being, JAT (Jugoslovenski aerotransport) Yugoslav Airlines, Jat Airways, and Air Serbia are all the same company, founded as a public enterprise under the old socialist system on April 1st, 1947, and transformed into a corporation in 1992.Andrijapfc (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - OK, the new website I think clears all questions about this. In the section "About us", it says:
English version: Air Serbia (formerly Jat Airways) is the legal successor of "Aeroput", which was founded on 17 June 1927. "Aeroput" was succeeded by Jugoslovenski aerotransport (Yugoslav Airlines) on 1 April 1947, which on 8 August 2003 changed its name to "Javno preduzeće za vazdušni saobraćaj Jat Airways" (Public Company for Air Transportation Jat Airways). On 28 July 2008, Jat Airways legal status changed to its current title "Akcionarsko društvo za vadušni saobraćaj Jat Airways" (Joint Stock Company for Air Transport).
Serbian version is even clearer: "Jat Airways od 26. oktobra 2013. leti pod nazivom i sa oznakama Air Serbia. Air Serbia je pravni naslednik kompanije Aeroput, osnovane..." which translated means: "Jat Airways flies since October 26, 2013, under the name and colors of Air Serbia. Air Serbia is the legal successor of the company Aeroput, founded... "
It is clear from here that it is the same company only rebranded and renamed. I am not sure what is the purpose of wanting to separate Air Serbia from its past. I mean, JAT was already included, and Serbia "payed" for it during the succession negociations among varios former Yugoslav republics about the former Yugoslavia assets, so no reason to ignore a rich past of the airline and pretend it is new, right the opposite. FkpCascais (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Yes same airline renamed, just like Emirates made Air Lanka into Sri Lankan taking 49 percent stake and management for ten years. 23:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.110.230.50 (talk)
  • Comment - As I said from the very beginning, Air Serbia may be the legal successor/re-branding of Jat Airways, but the content would be very Jat heavy in a merge considering its 60 years worth of history. It would be odd to the reader to see a minor intro and paragraph devoted to Air Serbia and then have the remaining vast majority devoted to the many incarnations of Jat Airways. So I still see no need for a merge, however, if it comes down to that then its only fair Aeroput be merged as well, lest the proponents of the merge appear hypocritical... Buttons (talk) 06:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Air Serbia wil replace Jat Airways in destinations and fleet section, opening paragraph, a paragragh in the history section, branding section, destinations article, that's quite sufficient, if Aeroput is the same airline then yes it should be merged as well. 175.110.230.50 (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article should definitely include a history section, with subsections about Aeroput and JAT Airways (possibly divided into JAT Airlines and JAT Airwys) and links to those articles where those periods would be more extensively covered. FkpCascais (talk) 03:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge - for the same reason that we should not have merged Eastern Germany into some half-lemma "new german states", as you loose a good description of the history of the subject. JAT Airways does not exist anymore, leave the lemma as it is, start from scratch with Air Serbia. Edoderoo (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge - Air Serbia is not a country. Therefore, it might have been based on the resources of JAT, but should not be considered the same company, and, therefore, the two items in Wikipedia sould not be merged. udavidovic — Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not up to us editors to decide weather we should, or not, consider it the same company. The company Air Serbia itself says in its own website that it is the same company, just renamed. Seems that there is no doubt that Air Serbia and JAT are the same company, the question here is weather to have it all in one article, or separated. FkpCascais (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of improper sources[edit]

This is the second time I revert ([2], [3]) IP additions of references that are not related to the article ([4], [5]). The sources added do not mention Air Serbia, and the IP readding them does not provide any explanation in the edit summaries. Can you, the author of these edits, stop doing that or explain the reasons for the inclusion of these references?--Jetstreamer Talk 16:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean, I've had to revert the same edit on Jat Airways several times. If it keeps up we might need a temp lock for I.P. editors. Buttons (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have stopped.--Jetstreamer Talk 01:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced claims removed[edit]

I have reverted a number of IP edits that littered the article with unsourced claims. WP:VERIFY applies.--Jetstreamer Talk 11:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just one thing - Moscow is not new route, they are just changing the airport... --Strower (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet and configuration[edit]

A lot of unregistered users appear to be adding information in relation to the proposed fleet, for example stating A319s are "enhanced" or with winglets. Also, there is information on the aircraft configuration which does not appear to be physically possible in light of Etihad's configuration of 60 inches pitch in business and 32 inch pitch in economy (which James Hogan has confirmed will be shared with Air Serbia). Etihad's A319s have 16 in business and 84 in economy. Someone inserted that the A319s will have 8 business and 138 economy seats which is just not possible with a 32 inch pitch Economy (as Air Serbia will share Etihad). At most, I think that they will only be able to fit 108 seats in economy on the A319 if they rip out two rows of business class from Etihad's planes to reduce business class to 8 seats. I suggest that the aircraft configuration data be deleted until such time as Air Serbia announces its plans or the seats are actually bookeable/viewable in airline reservation systems.

We also have no idea how they will configure their ATR72s, will they keep JAT's current configuration. I don't think anyone knows.Aeroput (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Codes[edit]

Why has an editor removed the codes JU and JAT they will remain with Air Serbia. 139.190.138.225 (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missleading article - no new company; just a new ownership structure and rebranding[edit]

The current version of the article, stating that:

"Air Serbia is the new national flag carrier of Serbia. It will replace Jat Airways, whose operations will be transferred to the company after a transitional period, starting from October 2013. Air Serbia will be based at Belgrade Nikola Tesla Airport"

is missleading and not correct, since there will be no legal nor pracital founding of a new company. Rather then that, Jat Airways is a joint stock company,that will be rebranded as Air Serbia, but remain the same company in the sense of public registers and international agreements. There will be no new company, thewe will just be a new name and appearance.

Also to put it clear: Jat Airways (and Air Serbia) is not a flag carrier of Serbia, since it´s not a "javno preduzece" since 2003 when it was transformed in a classical joint stock company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.2.61 (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completely disagree with your assertions. The most recent statement by Etihad and Air Serbia management suggests suggests that the yet to be formed Air Serbia is seeking a transfer of JAT's Air Operator's Certificate (AOC). You don't need to transfer this if you are changing your name only as was the case in 2003 when JAT Jugoslovenski Aerotransport AD become JAT Airways AD. As I have said before, let us wait until details of the transition are released before making broad sweeping statements around the legal continuity of JAT. Secondly, whether or not a company is "flag carrier" does not depend on it being classified as a Javno Preduzece (JP) or Akcionarsko Drustvo (AD). These are Serbian specific legals only. No one would dispute that Air France is the flag carrier of France even though it is a listed public company. If your assertions are true, then JAT would have ceased being flag carrier in January 1992 when JAT was transformed from a JP to an AD. The only change in 2003 was to its legal name only not company form. Have a look at Serbian company register and see for yourself. JAT's traffic rights are not written into international agreements but rather they all stipulate "the designated carrier of Serbia". Accordingly, the Republic of Serbia is free to designate any airline as its designated carrier and this does not need to be JAT.Aeroput (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JAT was transformed to an AD not before the 2003 - after the constitutional restructuring of Serbian and Montenegrin Union. The fact that you "dissagree" on something, does not give you a right to rewrite the article just to fit it to your speculations. If the new company is formed, how do you explain that all JAT employees that do not accept the social programm will remain in the (which?) company? If new company is formed, it would mean that all employees have to sign a new working contract and de facto change their employment. Etihad spoke just about the REBRANDING. Just finde it difficult to accept that destructive instinct of Serbian people. They find some strange joy in letting the thinks go down, dessapear and be eliminated. Every normal nation would be proud to have a 90 years coninuity in aviation bussines. Only Serbs find it cool to cut the tradition, and if it is not cut for real, than lets cut it in wikipedia!

If Etihad has bought "49%" it can only mean that they have bought a 49% of JAT, cause there is no "buying" when founding a new company.

"Hogan’s address in Australia came just days after Etihad Airways announced a historic deal with the Government of Serbia to buy 49 percent of Air Serbia, the country’s rebranded national airline, and a five-year management contract to run it." http://mb.com.ph/Business/Shipping/27987/Etihad_credits_success_to_%E2%80%98rewriting_airline_rulebook%E2%80%99 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.2.173 (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't know where you are getting your information but if you can read Serbian I suggest you go the Agencija za Privredne Registre website.

The transformation of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro did not affect JAT's company status. Your statements are not based on any verifiable statements.

You are also quoting secondary sources rather than primary documents which go against what you are saying. Etihad has not bought 49% of Jat Airways AD. If it did, then the Serbian company register located at the Agencija za Privredne registre would confirm this (which it doesn't.Aeroput (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You cannot find information about corporate shareholders (owners of an "A.D.") in the APR (Serbian company register). APR only has this data for LLCs ("d.o.o" companies).Andrijapfc (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just answer the simple question: did Etihad buy 49% of something? Or do you find any news, document, announcment when they talk about founding a new company with the 49% participation. JAT Yugoslav airlines has changded the name into Jat Airways and status from "j.p." to "a.d." in 2003 after in the place of Yugopslavia the states union Serbia and Montenengro was introduced. The 1992 date is connceted with the administrative establishment of new register. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.2.59 (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided more evidence that this is just a rebranding.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again from the Serbian company register: An official document of the shareholder's assembly of Jat Airways, proclaiming changes to the company's statute, explicitly stating that the company is being renamed from "Jat Airways" into "Air Serbia".Andrijapfc (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment isnt it like the Emirates and Air Lanka deal in 1995, where Emirates took took 49% stake in that carrier and rebranded it to Sri Lankan Airlines? 175.110.230.50 (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missleading introduction and article[edit]

http://www.airserbia.com/en/home/main_menu/about_us/history/major_achievements.html It´s difficult to believe that some people are here still keeping the completely wrong and missleading information, that Air Serbia will be new company. It will be Jat Airways with new name. Latest government statement:

- Komisija za zaštitu konkurencije trebalo bi do kraja ove nedelje da izda saglasnost na sporazum o strateškom partnerstvu sa “Etihadom”, odnosno na transakciju kojom će nacionalna aviokompanija Ujedinjenih Arapskih Emirata sa 49 odsto postati suvlasnik “Jat ervejza”, rekao je za Novosti Siniša Mali. (novosti.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.2.173 (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Website has also gone back to jatairways.com after a short stint as air-Serbia.com.139.190.138.225 (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Straight from the horses mouth, its just Jat Airways rebranded, so Air Serbia is clearly NOT a new airline, the evidence here.175.110.230.50 (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stylizing[edit]

The Air Serbia logo and aircraft livery are stylized as AirSERBIA, as seen in such examples as Air France and Air Berlin. The IP editor(s) who keeps reverting this needs to make peace with that fact before this article is semi-protected again. Buttons (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its sily to have the stylized as bit in any airline article, its just branding, what next you will mention, typeface used? infact airline articles should not even be titled as the airlines are branded, why is article title flydubai when it should be Fly Dubai, why should article mention Fly Dubai stylized as flydubai, when its totally meaningless to the article, so Air Serbia is written is a stylized form on the aircraft, what does it have to do with the article discussing the company? 175.110.230.50 (talk) 02:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its not silly or meaningless because that is how these companies choose to present their brand. If it did not matter to them, they wouldn't bother having them in the first place. I don't know where you got the idea that articles are titled as they are branded, because they're not. Air Serbia, Air France, Air Berlin, etc. are all titled as per their legal names but they choose to present their brand (through logos, liveries, etc.) in a certain fashion separate from that of a standard text. The manner in which a company presents itself is absolutely relevant to an encyclopedic article dedicated to it. Buttons (talk) 04:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point is its irrelevant to an encyclopedia article how an airline writes its name in branding, maybe a seprate section dealing with branding should be created to discuss the whole look not just the name, actually there was such but it was merged in history, as for article titles being written in branding style, there are a few, just because the ones you named are not that way doesn't mean there aren't others, I just gave one example. 175.110.230.50 (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand, you say its irrelevant to the article but then suggest committing a whole section to it? I don't see your logic when there's not enough information to warrant a whole separate section. Its a short mention how the airline appears to the naked-eye through their logo/livery. I'm not aware of any article titled as it is branded (PayPal maybe?) but if there are, I'm sure there is a reason for it. But as far as Air Serbia is concerned there is a difference in its legal name and brand style which warrants a small mention. What harm can it possibly do? Buttons (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You must be new to Wikipedia that is why you are unaware that some airline articles are titled according to their branding style airBaltic is one more for you incase reference to flydubai went unannoticed, there are others as well, also that some airline articles have dedicated a whole section to branding/livery and with extensive information covering several paragraphs in some cases. Mentioning how an airline applies its title in branding in an encyclopedia while no other aspect of the branding is discussed along side it, is unecessay and silly, its as nonsensical as people who used to post aircraft types used on routes, entire routings with stop overs and frequencies, destinations served from each airport all in the destinations section and some trivia like previous operators of the aircraft in fleet section. 175.110.230.50 (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, definitely not new to Wikipedia. Been here since 2007. I just don't know all of the hundreds/thousands of airline articles on here to know how each is titled. Your AirBaltic example works against your point since the lower case 'A' is only presented on its logo and livery while not the title. Its even mentioned that it is stylized as airBaltic. As for separate sections on livery's, yes, obviously those exist and can be quite in-depth, but "stylizing" in most cases that I've seen, only refer to the name of the airline, not the various shapes and colors a fuselage may have. Main point being, this is not unique to Air Serbia, since its quite common on airline articles. So if you really feel that strongly, I would suggest starting a discussion on WikiProject Aviation to try and get a greater consensus whether it should/should not be included. Buttons (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AirBaltic title on wiki used to be airBaltic, it should be Air Baltic actually, no need to start a discussion on a section for livery it exists for some airlines you can add it if you like, there was one here but someone merged it with history section. My point is its really not necessary to title articles as branding nor mention how an airlines name is stylized in an encyclopedia, the logo/title combo image on the right hand side of the page is sufficient to conclude that. 175.110.230.50 (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leased A320s[edit]

An editor keeps adding unsourced information that the two A320s that will be temporary leased from March will be Sharkleted versions, none of the sources support this. If anybody has a reliable reference that the two leased A320s will be sharklet equipped when delivered from this March then we can change the article, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Callsign[edit]

Someone keeps changing the callsign to "Air Serbia". This is wrong, the callsign to which pilots speak on the radio with is still "Jat". So when the pilots speak to the ATC, you will hear, e.g. "Jat 380", not "Air Serbia 380". Please stop changing it!!! Adrijan Pekovic (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree I cant see any evidence that the callsign has changed from "JAT". MilborneOne (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since someone changed it again, I took the extra step further to prove it is still "JAT". Here is the audio archive from liveatc.net, LGAV approach recorded on May 13th, 2014 at 1200Z: http://archive-server.liveatc.net/lgav/LGAV-May-13-2014-1200Z.mp3
If you scroll to 12:05 in the audio archive, you will see that the controller makes the call to "JAT512" as "Jat five-one-two". This was flight JAT512 from Belgrade to Athens. Adrijan Pekovic (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With the new ICAO code change, they have changed the callsign too. You can hear it in the following liveatc archive, EHAM tower recorded on June 14th, 2014 at 0630Z: http://archive-server.liveatc.net/eham/EHAM-Twr-Jun-14-2014-0630Z.mp3
It's on approximately 20:00 in the archive, the pilot says "Schiphol Tower, Air Serbia 360, good morning, 36R." Adrijan Pekovic (talk) 09:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some moron deleting registrations[edit]

There is some moron (or morons) deleting registrations that some users were so kind to source for us, and that matter so much for us, aviation enthusiasts. Those codes are just supplementary informations and don't conflict in any way with the rest of the article. I see those trolls doing that only on Air Serbia page, while on other airlines all the notes are normally accepted. I kindly call upon you to stop such practices or you're gonna receive a few slaps. Thanks for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.198.123 (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that your have been reminded a few times about being civil, if you still dont understand how to behave on wikipedia then a read of WP:CIVIL may be of some help. First this is not an enthusiast web page (plenty of web sites exist for such airline fans) but an encyclopedia and we dont list registrations unless they are notable for some reason. The aviation project has a little essay at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Registrations to explain the current consensus. You seem to think that this article is being treated differently but I can assure you it is not. So unless you can explain why individual aircraft registrations are notable in some way then they will be removed again. MilborneOne (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removed again. WP:AIRLINE-FLEET-CONTENT applies.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Registrations have been removed again ([6]). The rationale is provided right above; this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. Next time I will request protection of the page.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you MilborneOne and Jetstreamer for stepping in and appliying policy. I can just imagine how an American Airlines article would look like if we add all registrations of all their planes. What that IP was doing I think it was in good faith, but his continuos refusal to understand wp policies and his agressive tone has been disruptive. I hope this article will have some peace now, without such a minor unecessary disputes such as plane registrations. Cheers. FkpCascais (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@FkpCascais and MilborneOne: Requested page protection given the refusal to discuss the matter here. I won't revert again.--Jetstreamer Talk 02:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The unencyclopedic informationin in the fleet table has been removed by an IP. Thanks to them. I made up my mind on protecting the page. The linked edit couldn't have been possible if the page was protected.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources[edit]

This is the last edit from a set of them ([7], [8]) that have removed unreliable sources from the fleet table. The next time they are re-added I will request protection of the page. Please discuss the matter here before re-adding. Furthermore, it is expected for everyone to read the edits summaries. Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of unreliable sources continues ([9]). Will request protection of the page.--Jetstreamer Talk 16:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The addition of unreliable sources keeps going. Still waiting for the page to be protected.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article was protected for a while and after it became unprotected the addition of sources either not supporting the claims or directly not reliable keep going. There are no signs of discussing the matter here. Will request protection again the next time these sources are re-added without prior discussions here.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Requested protection again after this alteration with no sources supporting the changes.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Planespotters[edit]

I have reverted the additions made by 92.60.225.225 (talk · contribs) ([10]) 92.60.225.71 (talk · contribs) ([11]). Planespotters.net is not considered a reliable source so please stop using it as a reference. Please discuss here the way to deal with the fleet table before re-adding this source.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm requesting protection of the article again following the reversion of this edit, which introduced a source that does not support the claim it supposed to.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orders in infobox[edit]

Today, I've reverted 95.180.123.154's addition of orders in the infobox twice ([12], [13]). These lines are the previous step to requesting protection of the article again, as the IP is seemingly ignoring the messages and edit summaries left by others. For the record, {{airline infobox}} discourages the inclusion of orders in infoboxes. The next time orders are added to the infobox withour discussing the matter here in any way I'll be requesting the page to be protected again.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another reversion ([14]. Seemingly no intentions to discuss here.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted once again ([15]). Please note that this edit led to the IP being blocked for one week. After this the very same edit continued with no further discussions here and no edit summaries.--Jetstreamer Talk 16:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...and once again ([16]). Reporting IP at WP:ANI.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More of the same in the last days: [17], [18]. These have been reverted. Reporting to WP:AIV.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
95.180.123.154 (talk · contribs) has been blocked.--Jetstreamer Talk 16:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again with this [19]. Reverted [20].--Jetstreamer Talk 12:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested protection of the article again [21] after this [22] edit. It is more than clear that the user has a minimum understanding of English [23] and that they prefer to continue their disruptive editing across a number of Serbia-related articles.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parent company[edit]

I've reverted again ([24]) the addition of Etihad Airways as parent company, as this airline owns a minority (49%) of the shares. Furthermore, {{airline infobox}}'s documentation says "The full legal name of the airline's parent company, if applicable" when referring to the "parent" parameter. Just one parent company. Crystal clear.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New merger discussion[edit]

Hi everybody! I have recently worked for few hours to completely merge Jat Airways content into Air Serbia article. Not that I have just copy-pasted content, I have truly tried to fix the whole text, links, general overview and much more in order to article become even better than it was day ago. About half of the links were broken, so I had to access these links through web archive, or by finding other reliable sources. I have summarized whole content to the level where it can be simple for reading and in encyclopedic form.

There is still some job to do, most importantly: Filling section Liveries-Air Serbia, updating Services-Freight and Services-Charters content, and fixing other pages that links to Jat Airways.

Now, most importantly to everyone, why I did this merge? Because Air Serbia is just re-branded company, it is not new company as presented in the Serbian media. Date of founding is very important in this cases. It was founded on February 29, 1992 in Belgrade, Serbia. Source: [25].

For any other questions, write here. Thanks!--AirWolf (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutelly agree with your edit and with thee merge. I haven´t seen it in detail, but seems you have done an excellent work. FkpCascais (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very familiar with this topic, but it looks rational. Note that I have placed merge tags on the articles.Qxukhgiels (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Lets see how the merge discussion goes, hope there would be enough participants in order to make it possible to archeve consensus. FkpCascais (talk) 12:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jat Airways - Air Serbia merge discussion[edit]

No consensus to merge

Hello everybody! As mentioned here [26] and here [27], we will start a new merge discussion on whether be Jat Airways article content should be merged to Air Serbia article.

Intro data: Please take a look once again at Jat Airways and Air Serbia articles. These two articles are about the same airline company, now-called Akcionarsko društvo za vazdušni saobraćaj Air SERBIA Beograd (in Serbian language). This is a joint-stock company, flag carrier of Serbia based in Belgrade. It employs about 1,500 people and has a revenue of 135.30 million euros. In 2013, company then-called Jat Airways (then 100% ownership of the Government of Serbia) has signed a strategic partnership with Etihad Airways, which later bought 49% of shares. Company then commenced operations under new brand name Air Serbia on 26 October 2013. One user started discussion on 1 August 2013 (on the day a strategic partnership has been signed) whether or not should be article Air Serbia be merged to Jat Airways (See here: [28]). Neglecting user's will to help, I contest this discussion since it was opened nearly three months before any name change was official, and therefore I contest objectivity and neutrality of the opinions (before 26 October 2013 and after) and eventually results of the discussion ("no consensus to merge").

Statement: I have a few sources which should annul any speech about has it to be merged or not. All three are official, two of the company itself: [29], [30] and one from the Serbian government Agency for Business Registries: [31]. Now I want you to read provided links. Former two says that company only renamed its name (read re-branded), and the latter say that it was founded on 29 February 1992. This puts one big period on this issue.

Yesterday, I have made big cleanup on both articles (fixed links, copy-pasted text - edited it in order to put it in correct form, made fairly good general overview and kept neutrality and simplicity), and eventually redirected Jat Airways article to Air Serbia article. This was how the article Air Serbia looked after it: [32] , you can re-check all the text there and verify my work. Then, I've got reverts from some prominent good-faith editor, which later took us in so-called war edit. We have made a consensus later that articles should remain as they were until we exchange thoughts with other users. The only argument that contributor had against my edit, were the discussion results and mine disrespect of them, which I contest under named reason. Since then, I decided to open up a new legitimate discussion on this issue.

I hope we can get as more opinions on this issue from other contributors, making the discussion more objective and productive. I am for merging of one article into another. Please, before giving your opinion, first put one of the following three solutions in front of your opinion (for better overall visibility): Support merge / Oppose merge / Comment. Thank you! --AirWolf talk 21:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Merge Jugoslovenski Aerotransport has a long history as a Yugoslav airline so although it has a connection to Air Serbia it is best to leave it as a historic article. Air Serbia has a connection with Serbia rather than Yugoslavia, has a new name, has a new influences (Emirates), new fleet and a different ICAO code and callsign, all good reason to leave them both alone. No dispute that Air Serbia has a connection with JAT but it is not unusual to keep articles on defunct or merged airlines that have a long history and I dont see a need to merge these. MilborneOne (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Step by step contesting: Even JAT had a connection to Serbia, why haven't we then created Jat Airways separated form JAT Y.A.? New influences? How can a change in ownership and management structure affect history of a company so dramatically that we separate past periods of company, hmm? Does any ownership change, for example in sport, has to aspire us to create separated articles of one club, in this case (See: KK Vršac for example). Common man, that is part of history, a "new era". What about IATA code then? No dispute that Air Serbia - fair from you, and I can say that this new article was wrong idea from the first time, there would no be need for any merging now, if the discussion was held in Jat Airways talk page, once the strategic partnership was presented to the media. Finally, what will play big part once the discussion is over, something that void any view of thing, whether it is mine, yours or someone else: "...On 25 October 2013, Air Serbia was officially launched by Deputy Prime Minister. The rebranding of Jat Airways to Air Serbia coincided with a fleet modernization strategy and network expansion..." from here: [33]. You see the point? I am for the discussion, but if something is from reliable source and it is official, there is nothing we can do. Its about new ERA and not a new company.--AirWolf talk 00:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge, I have to agree with MilborneOne that JAT is fine with its own article, due to its long history in the aviation business. If you look at other companies that have merged, for example, in Category:Mergers and acquisitions, there are a lot of instances where there is both a merged company article and the new company article. I don't see an advantage to joining both articles together, and it would probably make the article too long, if merged. Funandtrvl (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing from discussion. Funandtrvl (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is written in the previous response, also stands here. With the addition, as obviously you haven't read the nomination, your statement: "it would probably make the article too long, if merged", with all the respect to you as a good contributor, is a blatant lie. See how it would look: [34].--AirWolf talk 00:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is really no need to use language like "blatant lie" to fellow good-faith contributors. In my opinion, that is a longish article, and it is not even particularly exhaustive in details (which would make it much longer once added). It is quite burdened by a long history section, which goes as far as 1927, and then liveries section, then historical fleet. I'm not hell-bent on opposing this merge, but I'd like to stress once more that by splitting the articles, we do not deny it's one company throughout. We should have in mind readers' interests how to best present the material about the topic, and not aim to mechanically map real-life topics and entities one-to-one in our articles. In my opinion (and not according to some particular policy), the brand change presents a good opportunity to split the articles into more succinct and focused forms. Leave the Air Serbia article as a summary style one, with only brief sections about Aeroput and JAT (maybe even split JAT and Jat Airways, but that's a stretch), and have the best of both worlds. No such user (talk) 10:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Compare British Airways and History of British Airways. No such user (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I won't discuss whether I was using inappropriate language or not. That doesn't make sense, as it's already written. Now, you gave one fair proposal, lot of old companies has such articles related to their history. And that can happen after we make a consensus to merge Aeroput, JAT Airways (JAT Y.A. already merged in it) and Air Serbia in one article. Then your proposal could come in handy. But that is lot of work to do, and we should be very careful when creating it, and even we should request protection for first weeks on both articles. To be honest, later after I started discussion, some different opinins made me look for such things and I liked the idea since the beginning. I hope that the discussion will be done in month or so, cause I'll probably have some time in mid to late September. Nice review.--AirWolf talk 15:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, in principle, do you agree on merging these articles if we create it more compressed by putting that heaviness of its long history (liveries etc.) in article reffered to its history? Positive answer should give a slightly greater lock to this discussion. Have in mind, I'm ready to cooperate, mostly because of the stalemate that was around this topic for more than 12 months, and I hope that you have no interest in prolonging it.--AirWolf talk 15:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, my example of British Airways did not mean that we should create History of Air Serbia and put JAT and Aeroput in it; that would be quite an anachronism. I'd rather leave the setup as it is currently, and only tie the three articles more tightly with {{main}} and summary-style sections. We often keep historical articles under the name they were known at the time, e.g. Socialist Republic of Serbia, Republic of Serbia (1992–2006) and Serbia; or Constantinople vs. Istanbul. That was also suggested by FkpCascais below as a possibility: In case of keeping the split, this article of Air Serbia should have a section (not too large) about History where Aeroput and JAT would be conciselly described and with a note leading readers to those two articles. No such user (talk) 09:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, now you are comparing article about company to countries and cities which are truly historical. That makes non-sense. Also, you were catching the only sentence (read: ONLY) that has some trace to your opinion from that user. 'From now on, I won't participate in discussion where other users won't accept others opinion and constantly tries to put their opinion in power. Stupid opinions don't count. I've tried till now to stay neutral and hear every voice, but it won't be a case from now on. All these articles will be merged.'--AirWolf talk 09:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to say, but I don't see consensus for merging. These articles will be merged only after consensus has been reached. And I will ask you nicely to stop trying to push other's opinions. You request feedback and feedback is what you're getting.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you? Do we know each other from somewhere? You will ask me nicely? Have you participated in this discussion so far to give any opinion of how it should work? Have you?--AirWolf talk 17:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support , per nom. It is the same company by all means, just rebranded. Sources also comfirm it. FkpCascais (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge. Yes, it's a close call, but as MilborneOne said, they have a new fleet a new brand, and are trying to present themselves as a new company. Even it is merely a new era, and not a new legal entity, the difference is in in my opinion substantial to justify a new topic, that is, a new article. I don't dispute AirWolf's findings that they have a legal continuity, but we're not bound by legal definitions. Instead, we should focus on how best to present information to the reader, and I think that the difference between brands warrants the split. No such user (talk) 07:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Similarly, we have Aeroput as well. They are all the same company, Aeroput, Jat Airways and Air Serbia, but we have them separated by these periods. In case of keeping the split, this article of Air Serbia should have a section (not too large) about History where Aeroput and JAT would be conciselly described and with a note leading readers to those two articles. FkpCascais (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm exhausted of contesting every talk. List of airlines by foundation date - what about similar airlines which have merged articles despite name changes (search by: still in operation)? I have also found one interesting article: [35], and if you search for these companies (named in this article) in wikipedia search, you can't find any split articles. I mean, from the whole your talk, brand name change was your biggest "valid" argument for opposing. Then, you were asking what is the best way to present the information. Simple, put it all together with the best possible simplification of its content.--AirWolf talk 00:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is very funny how the people won't accept the reality. In the first merge discussion (which is disputed), the main reason for opposing merge was based on unreliable sources, self-beliefs that the new company was created. Now, when I contested that claim with more than reliable sources, people start giving opinions on how it is uncommon and unethical to merge articles. I'm still waiting for deeply reasoned talk, supported by facts and sources, of why we should left these articles split. I gave you my opinion rich of such things. Give me opinion of the same, or close value at least.--AirWolf talk 00:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAlso, I don´t agree at all that they are now "trying to present themselves as a new company", right the opposite, at the official website they make it quite clear that Aeroput and JAT (with obvious major part dedicated to JAT at history section) are the same company and they embrace the long tradition of he company. FkpCascais (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the sake of a discussion I've stripped all my text which I found it could be offensive in some way to other users and I've also stripped all my text which some users could understand as "explicitly telling people it's my way or the highway".AirWolf talk 18:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request on 12 August 2014[edit]

Can someone add Etihad Regional as a codeshare partner to the "codeshare agreements" section as per http://www.airserbia.com/en/news/etihad-regional-and-air-serbia-announce-codeshare-agreement. 71.12.206.168 (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done .--Jetstreamer Talk 23:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

worldairlinenews.com[edit]

Jetstreamer, I noteced that many of the info the IP is trying to add can be found here: http://worldairlinenews.com/category/air-serbia/ Is that site reliable? FkpCascais (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@FkpCascais: That's not the kind of references I'd use but if you have any doubts regarding reliability you may raise your concerns at WP:RSN.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Number of destinations in infobox[edit]

What is going on with the slow but long and persistent edit-warring an IP has been doing by changing the number of destinatons from 41 to 42? That is all he has been doing here. 5 ediits all equal. What destination is he refering to? Also, a question: do we consider as destinations all airports the airline flies to, including the hub, or we exclude the hub from the total number? What is the consensus and general practice regarding this? FkpCascais (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am counting at our article here, Air Serbia destinations, a total of 44 airports listed, including the hub, Belgrade, one terminated, and 7 seasonal destinations. FkpCascais (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP keeps modifying the number of destinaions with no sources backing their changes.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, counting the number of destinations at a different article does not count as a reliable source.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously know that. I am just pointing out that in any case the article listing destinations seems not updated. FkpCascais (talk) 05:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is outdated indeed. The IP has been blocked.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Noteced the report and outcome. Hope it will persuade the IP to become more carefull and respect the rules of Wikipedia:Verifiablity. Thanks. PS: What about my question regarding the total number of destinations; hub(s) included, or not? Thanks FkpCascais (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, hubs should be included in the total count. But the number of destinations in the infobox must have a citation to a reliable source. Ideally, a paragraph or two in the "Destinations" section, dealing with current destinations and supported by the current timetable, should be enough.--Jetstreamer Talk 02:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Totally right. Thanks for clarifiying that to me regarding the hubs and destnations. FkpCascais (talk) 02:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


28 July 2016 update: Air Serbia flies non-stop to 44 destinations (45 including its hub in Belgrade) as of 23 June 2016, when JFK was launched. Here's a source (check the boilerplate at the bottom): http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/from-belgrade-to-the-big-apple-air-serbia-makes-history-as-first-new-york-service-takes-off-300289679.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.194.216.5 (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It says the airline serves, or has plans to serve, 44 destinations. It does not say it currently serves 44 destinations.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lede section[edit]

The lede section stands now as it follows:

"Air Serbia (stylized as AirSERBIA) is the flag carrier and largest airline of Serbia.[9] The airline was formerly known as Jat Airways until it was renamed in 2013. Air Serbia commenced operations under its new name on 26 October 2013.[9][10] The airline has its hub at Belgrade Nikola Tesla Airport.[7]"

Would anyone object using the phrase from the "Our story" page at official website that says - "Air Serbia began its operation in 2013 and is the legal successor of the companies Aeroput (1927), Yugoslav Airlines (1947) and Jat Airways (2003)." - and compose the lead incorporating that sentence? The result would be:

"Air Serbia (stylized as AirSERBIA) is the flag carrier and largest airline of Serbia.[9] The airline began its operation on 26 October 2013.[9][10] and is the legal successor of the companies Aeroput (1927), Yugoslav Airlines (1947) and Jat Airways (2003).[11] Air Serbia has its hub at Belgrade Nikola Tesla Airport.[7]"

The source [11] would be the one I added here. Yes, my point is to add the important aspect of the legal successorship of Aeroput and JAT. Will anyone oppose the change? FkpCascais (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. According to WP:LEDE, the use of references in the lead section is not mandatory if the information appearing there is sourced elsewhere in the article. Wouldn't it be better to add those lines in the ″History″ section and source it there so that we have a clean lead?--Jetstreamer Talk 23:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AirSerbia wet leases Adria CRJ900[edit]

AirSerbia signed aggreement with Adria to wet lease 4 CRJ900s from June 2016. http://www.airserbia.com/en-RS/corporate/news/lease-deal-with-adria-airways-supports-air-serbia-network-growth Also another a330 will arrive by the end of the year also from JET Airways— Preceding unsigned comment added by Be1thaz0r (talk • contribs) 21:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Air Serbia is leasing a CRJ 900[1][edit]

Hello, Air Serbia will be leasing a Adria Bombardier CRJ 900, this summer. It will not be painted in Air Serbias livery. ALPA4500 (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Thanks ALPA4500 (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Datbubblegumdoe[talk – contribs] 03:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No wet-leased aircraft in fleet tables per WP:AIRLINE-FLEET-LIST guidelines.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ >http://www.exyuaviation.com/2016/03/air-serbia-to-lease-adria-jet-and-add.html

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Air Serbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Air Serbia fleet[edit]

Air Serbia has a total fleet of 22 planes, according to the last data on their website. That would be Airbus 330 and Bombardier CRJ-900. Here check it yourselves - http://www.airserbia.com/sr-RS/nasa-flota — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.180.63.69 (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No wet-leased aircraft in fleet tables per WP:AIRLINE-FLEET-LIST. The source you added (and also the note) clearly says the aircraft are/will be wet-leased.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Long-haul[edit]

This article clearly speaks on how June 23 the flights to New York will start. I think it would be time to update oour article from "Long-haul plans" with a vague ideia of their exstance in the future (as it is now in the article), to a confirmed fact. The plane is there, tickets are being sold, and it is right a week ahead of us. FkpCascais (talk) 08:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed[edit]

Maybe for No such user the fact that Air Serbia is the largest Serbian airline and the country's flag carrier parallels WP:BLUE [36] but to me the claims are not that obvious. I've requested citations for them. Regarding WP:LEADCITE, I don't see the statements referenced in the rest of the article.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I call bullshit, Jetstreamer. If you want a reliable reference for "flag carrier" beside the fact that it's named "Air Serbia]" I guess Reuters will do [37]. If you doubt that Air Serbia is the largest Serbian airline, I don't know what to say, try to find a larger one. That the current lead does not adequately summarize the contents according to WP:LEAD, I can agree, but putting spurious {{cn}}'s or {{fv}}s does not help the matter. No such user (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Call it whatever you want. Adding maintenance tags actually helps in clarifying things you think are related to WP:BLUE. Following your reasoning, American Airlines is the flag carrier of the United States, but it is not. The flag carrier status for Air Serbia was actually supported until you removed the citation in the diff above. I'm reinstating it if there's no opposition from you or anyone else.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Air Serbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Air Serbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this page protected[edit]

Im just kinda curious why the page is admin protected, as it's something you don't see very often. Gaismagorm (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROTECTION will address all your concerns.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
okie dokie Gaismagorm (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Air_Serbia&oldid=1221537548"