Talk:Kuwait Airways

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

Flight Numbers[edit]

The Flight Numbers section, listing the flight numbers and aircraft used to each Kuwait Airways destination, is not encyclopedic content, so I removed it. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. SempreVolando (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passenger Numbers[edit]

I don't believe the passenger numbers to be correct that the airline carrying each year!

Kuwait International Airport is the only airport in Kuwait and is Kuwait Airways home hub and don't have bases anywhere else, and the airport only handles around 5 million passengers a year and it is stated that Kuwait airways is carrying in-excess of 20 million passengers a year! All 20 million passengers would need to arrive or depart through Kuwait airport, so these figures are clearly wrong!

Also it is not possible for an airline with only 20 aircraft in their fleet to carry 20 million passengers! This is impossible.

Giles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.178.68 (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kuwait Airways subsidiaries[edit]

Kuwait Airways has several subsidiaries that are considered as large companies in Kuwait and are listed in the Kuwaiti stock market. these companies are going through a similar privatization process as KAC.

  • Kuwait Aviation Services Co. (100%)(KASCO)
  • Automated Systems Co. (ASC) (68.5%)GDS provider since 1989 www.asc-me.net/
  • Alafco (11.49%)

Kuwait Airways also went in to alliances with several airlines to keep up with demand and alternate for holding its operations during the 1990 War.

  • Shorouk Airways (49%)(ceased operation 2003)
  • Jet Airways (india)

Mohammed Asiry (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 747-400 not officially part of the fleet[edit]

This edit will be removed in a week or so unless solid arguments for their inclusion in the article are provided here, given that 90.200.23.238 (talk · contribs) contributions to the page have been unexplained. As I already stated in my edit summaries when I reverted them, the airline does not include the Boeing 747-400 as part of the fleet. Furthermore, Planespotters.net is not a reliable source. I therefore see no reason for the edit to stay.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead with the reversion [1]. WP:SILENCE applies.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 777-300ERs not yet ordered[edit]

The following edits have recently been reverted [2] [3] [4]. Some of them were unsourced but the most important thing is that the airline hasn't ordered any Boeing 777-300ER yet. Ther are references in the article mentioning the carrier is just considering the acquisition.--Jetstreamer Talk 01:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted once again [5]. Is anybody reading the talk page?--Jetstreamer Talk 13:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does discrimination against Israelis pass the WP:NOTNEWS threshold?[edit]

Two editors ([6] and [7]) have removed the legal dispute surrounding the airline due to its refusal to allow Israelis to board its planes. The 1st editor gave the nebulous reason "doesn't appear to be particular notable" w/o elaboration, and the 2nd editor referenced WP:NOTNEWS. Here is a direct quote from WP:NOTNEWS

Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia

I think the story in question certainly does not fit the "routine". Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." Crystal clear.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that the refusual by some airlines in the Middle East not to carry Israeli passengers is fairly common and is not worth of mention just because the press pick up on it sometimes, its not new or notable (and it is not the airlines but the legal code in the relevant country not to deal with Israeli citizens). MilborneOne (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how routine it is for Airlines of Arab States to participate in the Arab boycott, but (per the article on the Arab boycott) American law does not allow participation in the Arab boycott. That is why the USA Today reference says that Secretary Foxx is threatening legal action against the airline. I believe the threat of legal action by the Secretary of Transportation is notable. It is not routine for the Secretary of Transportation to issue such threats. Perhaps the sentence I added needs to make that more clear. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it is not notable and I dont see any support for you adding this to the article, the threat by DoT is still not notable and as far as I know Kuwait is not part of the United States so American law is not really relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I did not bring up the Arab boycott in the correct context because Kuwait Airways is not being threatened with legal action for refusing to fly to Israel. The company is threatened with legal action because they are discriminating based on national origin while operating in the United States. Neither Britain nor the United States ban Israeli citizens from flying in or out of them, so Kuwait Airways has no basis for refusing, other than complying with the Arab boycott, to fly Israelis between those two destinations. This case is similar in notability to Denny's legal troubles for refusing to serve black customers. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kuwait Airlines dont actually boycott Israeli citizens they just refuse to carry anybody who will not be allowed in to the destination country (or even a stop over country) not just Israeli Citizens but anybody without a valid visa this is standard airline practice. As far as I know Kuwait Airways doesnt fly domestic services in the United States so little the USA can do, no passport or visa no travel. MilborneOne (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and this has nothing to do with racial discrimination as citizenship and race are not the same thing. No visa no travel, simples. MilborneOne (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you are missing the point. Kuwait Airways is refusing to fly Israelis with valid passports for travel between the USA and Britain. The reason KA is refusing to fly those passengers is that KA does not like the Israeli passports, which is discrimination based on national origins, and is equivalent to racial discrimination.
Nobody is requesting Kuwait Airways fly Israeli citizens to Kuwait, a country that does not allow entry to holders of Israeli passports. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK my mistake but still not a big deal they could just use another airline rather than use one from a country in a state of war with Israel. MilborneOne (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"not a big deal they could just use another airline" ???? That's like saying black people don't have to patronize Denny's, they could patronize other restaurants.
Now that you understand the basis for the legal threats do you agree that it is notable? Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this reference titled "Feds accuse Kuwait Airways of ethnic discrimination" by thehill.com makes the point a little more clear. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No still not notable and as far as I know being an Israeli citizen is not an "ethnic" classification. You need to see if anybody else supports or otherwise your position as there is little point going around in circles, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation has reached its course, so I have filed the RfC below. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Should a threat of legal action by the Secretary of Transportation against the airline be included in the article?[edit]

There is tentative support for including the claim, particularly since appeals to NOTNEWS were not substantiated after being challenged (by DGG, for instance). Jetstreamer's shift of position is important to note as well. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

United States Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx has threatened the airline with legal action for discrimination against Israeli passport holders. References are:

  1. CBS News
  2. USA Today
  3. The Hill
  4. Haaretz

Is this notable enough to be included in the article? Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed above any threat of legal action is not notable, foreign governments make threats all the time and none pass the threshold of notability particularly against an airline following the law of its state of registration. MilborneOne (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No I don't think it is notable in or of itself. If the threat is carried out or if it was part of an ongoing issue (i.e. used to support some other similar claims) then yes. As it was presented here I would say no. AIRcorn (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know if this qualifies as "part of an ongoing issue", but a New York city Councilmember has called on the Port Authority to terminate KA's landing rights at JFK until they stop discriminating against Israels (see NY Daily News). Therefore, it is more than just Anthony Foxx issuing a legal threat. It's at multiple levels of the US government. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably yes --MilborneOne, what's the evidence that , "foreign governments make threats all the time " and in particular , that the US government does so. Do other airlines discriminate in similar fashion? If they do, perhaps we need an article on that. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No for now per WP:NOTNEWS.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably yes - I agree with the above user DGG. I think this is definitely notable, especially if the airline isn't allowed to land its planes at certain airports in the United States. This seems to be an ongoing problem and should be noted so in the article. I haven't heard of any other airline encountering this type of threat before therefore I think it is relevant and notable. Hope this helps. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary[edit]

After a week, the RFC can be closed. Thank you to all the editors who chimed in.
It appears that the two editors, MilborneOne & Jetstreamer, making the WP:NOTNEWS argument failed to substantiate their claim that legal threats are routine. Based on the feedback from Aircorn, it seems that the thinking is that the legal threat is not significant enough to be included by itself, so the paragraph should be re-written to focus on the controversy that the airline is discriminating and the threat from Secretary Foxx is only part of a larger response. For the sake of WP:NPOV we can certainly write that the airline is using Kuwaiti Law to defend itself. That's what I have done here. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a clear consensus for inclusion because two editors said ″probably yes″, other two said ″no″, and you think it should be included. Notwithstanding, I think inclusion won't do any harm, so let it be. I'm fine with it, but I don't think the added content fits well within the ″History″ section.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have to read more than the !vote (i.e. read the reasoning, which I interpreted as "not the way it was previously written, but possibly yes if re-written", which I did re-write). If you don't think it should be within the "History" section, feel free to move it (I wouldn't mind if you made it its own section). Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add?[edit]

Can someone who is allowed to edit this article please add this to the section on Operations in the United States?

---

The Department of Transportation said that the airline was failing to comply with US law, both because the airline was engaging in unreasonable discrimination and because the airline's actions were inconsistent with US anti-boycott laws.[8][9][10] In November 2015, the airline asked the Federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to consider the dispute.[11]

In December 2015, in response to the matter the airline dropped its New York-London route.[12][13][14] Lancman said: "If you’re so anti-Semitic that you would rather cancel a flight than provide service to Israeli passport holders, then good riddance."[15] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.34.71.18 (talk) 06:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is not really needed, since the issue is more about discrimination than about the Arab League boycott of Israel (the boycott is a motivation for the discrimination, but that is beyond the scope of the article about the airline). I have added everything else in these two edits. --Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subsection heading[edit]

I had originally named the subsection as "Operations in the United States" because at the time it appeared that the United States would heavily fine or prohibit Kuwait Airways from operating within the US. Since the matter was resolved by Kuwait Airways dropping the NY to London route, I renamed the section to "New York to London route". I think that's probably a more appropriate name, as that is at the heart of the controversy. Feel free to change to something else if you can think of a better subsection heading.--17:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Sometimes the sky is blue (talk)

Add?[edit]

Thank you for helping. The boycott point was in the footnote about the airline dispute that I gave you, that you deleted. Here it is - [16] It's also in many news articles that can also be used as footnotes.[17][18][19] And Senators also focused on it also- [20][21]. Oh - and maybe the title to the section should let the reader know that the section is a bout a dispute or disagreement or, as you call it, a controversy? Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.34.71.18 (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not delete anything other than <ref> tags because the tags are not appropriate for talk pages (see this edit).
While I personally would not oppose calling the subsection something like "Allegations of discrimination", other editors could challenge it under the WP:UNDUE policy, and that's a fight I wouldn't want to fight (see discussion above for how hard it was to get consensus to add the issue to the article in the first place). The headline "New York to London Route" would not be susceptible to a WP:UNDUE challenge, which is why I picked it. --Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although I was against adding this to the article I accept that the consensus was to add something but it now appears to have far to much information against its importance to the airline history, perhaps somebody can trim it down somewhat before it overwhelms the article, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think there is a need to trim? The sub-section properly describes the controversy, reactions, and how it was resolved. As far as I can tell, everything is encyclopedic. --Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add that since this is a controversy, WP:NPOV requires that both sides of the controversy be covered. This, of course, adds length. --Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that the above discussion from the RfC resulted in a request for additional info from the original bare-bones version. --Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of unereferenced material[edit]

@Sometimes the sky is blue: I don't see the logic in this [22] edit. The 1982 hijacking was removed for being unsouced but I see a lot of material in the same section that is also unreferenced and was kept.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the type of editor who removes text just because it is unsourced. I removed the subsection because of the hijackings because all the hijackings should be listed within the main section of the incidents (i.e. there is no need for the subsection). Of the three hijackings that were listed in the subsection, two were already listed in the main section. The third was not listed, but I was not going add it to the main section since it was not sourced. If somebody else wants to add it back to the main section with a {{citation needed}} tag, be my guest. --Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 14:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archived references not used in the article[edit]

Archived references

--Jetstreamer Talk 00:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kuwait Airways. 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) 15:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CEO[edit]

Maen Mahmoud Razouqi [23]has been appointed to the lead the airline as of October 2021.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maen Mahmoud Razouqi (talk • contribs) 11:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot use Linkedin, which is edited by yourself, as a source. It is not considered reliable. Separately, you have a conflict of interest if you edit the article and you work for the company. The article has been protected to prevent further disruption.--Jetstreamer Talk 11:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.timesaerospace.aero/news/people/kuwait-airways-appoints-new-ceo
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kuwait_Airways&oldid=1208062983"