Talk:Air France/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Connie

Request that the aircraft in the image "Air France Lockheed Constellation" be properly identified; see imagetalk for reasons why I disagree with the Connie designation.

Reply: It's now correctly identified....Thank you

Air France has higher accident rate than other airlines

The source is here, please don't keep deleting my editing. In the data base, Air France recorded 5 accidents alone in year 1999 and 4 accidents alone in 1993, much more than other companies. If someone is employee in Air France, please tell ur management spend money on improve the quality, not fight with us in wiki. http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?Year=1993 http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?Year=1999 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.101.33.165 (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Intro

Reverted the previous change of Air France's official name to Société Air France from Compagnie National Air France. Air France's partial privatisation a couple years ago resulted in a change of its legal status. Hence, it became a Société. Its used to be a Compagnie National for half a century during which it was majority government-owned. (Compagnie National is the French equivalent of a UK Crown Corporation.) Pimpom123 14:54, 1 November 2007 (GMT)

The information about Air France's European passenger transport is very out-of-date, a relative importance and is not quoted. How did Air France reach a 25% market share?!--88.68.193.91 (talk) 10:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Livery Section

I restored the livery section. I know its a stub, and it doesn't provide much information, but especially with an airline as old as Air France a livery section is an important piece of history. I don't have the knowledge to expand it, but I'm leaving it in there to suggest it to be added. —Cliffb 04:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

== Fewer incidents are listed than shown by other sources, for example Aviation Safety Network.SilasW 22:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


Callsign

Just a note that the airline callsign is and has been for a long time AIRFRANS [1] it appears to need a revert every few days. Please dont change it unless you can cite that the official ICAO callsign has been changed. Thank you. MilborneOne 22:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Air France Call Sign

I think the Air France Call Sign is "Air France" (and not "Airfrans") just because the Air France articles in all other languages cite the callsign "Air France", and every people say that the callsign of the company is actually "Air France". I also tried to contact the own airline to confirm the information with them, but there is no "Contact" link on their website. I later found this website, on which the Air France callsign cited is "Air France": [2]. You may think that the callsign is "Airfrans" due to pronounce confusion ("Air France" and "Airfrans" have the same pronounce). Although, if you want a better proof, I can get it. Thanks and good night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.15.197.142 (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it is not a matter of thinking that the Air France callsign is AIRFRANS the official source of callsigns ICAO Document 8585 says it is AIRFRANS and the FAA website has a copy of which states AIRFRANS [3]. So unless you can find a non-amateur reference that cites that ICAO Document 8585 has changed then it should stay as AIRFRANS. MilborneOne 21:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Officially, both ICAO and the FAA, the world authorities on aviation, cite the callsign as AIRFRANS, as due several hundred aviation websites online which one can find by looking up "AIRFRANS CALLSIGN" on google, or "AIRFRANS ICAO"; for example airodyssey.net, which has been an aviation reference site for about a decade now, lists it as AIRFRANS, as do countless more similar counterparts. The mispelling is most likely done so that the French Crews could correctly pronounce the callsign in English seeing as English is the language of Aviation, France in French sounds more like Fraunz, which could be confusing in radio communications, hence AirFrans which in French sounds just like the English pronouncation of the airline's name is used to prevent miscommunications over radio frequencies (seeing as Air France is the correct name in both languages, French crews may default to their natural pronounciation, thus this "mispelling" was done to change that). Overall, however, ICAO and the FAA lists the callsign as AIRFRANS and they are both the official authorities for aviation above all other hobby sites online superceding both aerosite.net and airodyssey, and since they side with the AIRFRANS version, then that is the correct way to spell it. Perhaps, Milborne, it would be a good idea to cite your link next to the callsign in the infobox for future reference by other users, and as for the anon, it is often quite possible that internet reference sites are ill informed or make assumptions, Milborne has found possibly the most accurate source, unless you can get Air France itself to state otherwise. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 22:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Airfrans is short for Air France therefore the callsign is AirFrans, hope this helps Kinglevaux 13:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Historically speaking, the Air France call sign is "AIRFRANS" to remind pilots to pronounce it "in English" phonetics rather than French to prevent unneeded confusion. This goes out the window, however, when French ATC uses French instructions... 68.222.1.40 (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference 4 ain't working

Reference 4 is not working. The link needs to be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.148 (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

History

Have corrected factually wrong information and cited relevant sources. Pimpom123 16:35, 12 October 2007 (GMT)

Have also moved the part dealing with Concorde's retirement to a new sub-section of the "Fleet" section. The new sub-section is entitled "Fleet history" and gives a brief overview of important historic milestones in Air France's aircraft fleet development, e.g. that they entered the jet age with the Comet srs. 1, commenced sustained jet operations with the Caravelle and 707 and that they were one of the biggest operators of the 747. The reason I moved the part dealing with Concorde's retirement to this new sub-section is that it makes a better fit because that part primarily deals with fleet-specific aspects, as opposed to general history. I have moreover deleted the speculative sentences relating to the "ulterior" motives of the Air France management to retire Concorde prematurely, thereby forcing British Airways' hand to do likewise. These sentences alluded to some kind of unproven conspiracy theory between Air France's senior managers led by M. Jean-Cyril Spinetta and their compatriots among Airbus's top management at that time. I am of the opinion that we should only write about things that can be proven through relevant references and should not indulge in unsubstantiated speculation, even if this can be referenced. Furthermore, in my opinion, we should try to keep in mind that any articles we write/co-author in this medium should be of general educational value, rather than primarily catering to special interest groups, such as Concorde enthusiasts in this case. Pimpom123 15:04, 22 October 2007 (GMT)

ProseTimeline

I've now added {{ProseTimeline}} twice, and each time its been removed by User:Narayana golfchampion without an edit summary as to why. This article needs some serious work to improve its flow and style. I think the template should stay until the article is improved. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


The reason I removed the tag is because, in my opinion, it is not justified for the following reasons:

1. a timeline only explains WHAT has happened.

2. it does not offer any further background information as to WHY something has happened, which may be important in the given context.

Furthermore, attaching specific dates to prose in a history section helps keeping it in chronological order.

Therefore, I am of the opinion that this tag is out of place, as far as this section of the article is concerned. User:Narayana golfchampion 16:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the meaning of the template. The whole history section, in its current form, reads like a timeline/list of events:
    • Paragraph 3: On DATE, event. One sentence long.
    • Paragraph 7: In DATE, event. One sentence long.
    • Paragraph 8: In DATE, event. One sentence long.
    • Paragraph 10: On DATE, event. Three short sentences long.
    • Paragraph 12: On DATE, event. One sentence long.
    • Paragraph 13: On DATE, event. One sentence long.
    • Paragraph 14: On DATE, event. Three sentence long.
    • Paragraph 15: On DATE, event. One sentence long.
    • Paragraph 16: On DATE, event. Four sentence long.
The template is not asking for dates to be removed, or reasons for events to be removed, or anything else to be removed. It is prompting people to improve the section by asking them to expand the paragraphs beyond one sentence, or combine paragraphs by subject, or use variety in their language(not just "On DATE, event."), or anything else they can do to improve the article. I, personally, don't want it to be turned into a strict list, but would like to see it changed out of its current list format. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
User MacInnis, why then don't give it a try yourself? Pimpom123 17:00, 11 February 2008 (GMT)

CityJet

Is CityJet subsidiary that should be added to the subsidiaries section?--83.71.99.169 (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Losing luggage

After two events in the same trip, I started asking around about Air France and lost luggage incidents. As far as I can tell, Air France is the company that seems to lose luggage the most. Is there a way to include this information in the page? I understand I'll need to cite resources...

Thanks. PedroMR (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Not only would it require a reliable citation but considerations of WP:WEIGHT and notability. A few lost bags in one year has to measured against the seventy odd years history of the airline. Most airlines loose (or normally delay) a small portion of bags for one reason or the other and this has to be measured against the millions of passengers a year who do not loose bags, and if Air France is different for some reason. Remember this is an encyclopedia not a travel guide, also remember that most airlines have at some time been described by passengers as the worst for losing bags! MilborneOne (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Article improvements

I have reworked the article, edited prose, combined and expanded sections, etc. Hopefully this makes the article more organized, informative, and interesting to read. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Is London City really a focus city for AF?

Is London City really a focus city for AF? I've added a citation needed tagJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought this was a bit weird, but I found references stating that AF is the biggest carrier at London City [4] and it is aiming to expand further there.[5] However it does seem a bit strange to have a more regional airport listed along with national hubs. SynergyStar (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Upon further checking, I found that AF operations at LCY are dominated by CityJet, so the focus emphasis belongs to that subsidiary. SynergyStar (talk) 03:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

1970s Fleet

Whoever inserted the fleet table in this section, kindly re-check its contents. I believe this to be wrong because it omits Air France's contemporary Carvelle fleet, which if I remember correctly, formed the airline's single largest sub-fleet (larger than its substantial 707 sub-fleet) until about the mid-1970s. Also, I remember that around that time (early- to mid-'70s) AF's total fleet strength was 75 aircraft. Hence, the total no. of aircraft listed in that table - 32 - is far too low. Pimpom123 18:07, 24 April 2009 (GMT)

Sorry, my fault I didnt include the Caravelle - it is in the reference qty 44 that makes a fleet of 76. Article corrected. MilborneOne (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts user MilborneOne Pimpom123 23:29, 26 April 2009 (GMT)

Formation and early years

The UAT [Union Aeromaritime de Transport] link doesn't work. It links to the UTA [Union de Transports Ariens] article (instead of the UAT article as one would expect). Pimpom123 23:38, 26 April 2009 (GMT)

Minor delay is not Controvertial

Aircraft delayed passengers held in airside lounge. Nothing particularly unusual in that most countries dont let passengers in without visas and an event that is not that rare. Aircraft delays are not uncommon and not letting persons in without visas is standard practice. We also have to consider WP:WEIGHT of a minor incident in the seventy odd year history of the airline. Unless it can be proved to be notable to Air France then I suggest the Controversies section be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I cannot see where the big controversy was in that case, what was AF supposed to do? Build a hotel inside the waiting room? Break the law and smuggle people across the border?
Currently, the way the section is written, it give the wrong impression that those passenger were ill treated because there were Indian, and this is clearly not true, they had to wait where they did because they had no visa, full stop. The editor tries to make it look like racism by adding "In contrast, other non-Indian passengers (mostly holding EU, American, and Canadian passports) were accommodated in hotels near the airport.", the reason they could go to hotels is because France allows certain nationals to enter without first applying for a visa. AF cannot change the laws of the country because one of their plane had a technical problem. I am sure Air India would have done exactly the same in the situation.
I also wonder how true the quote "...returned with threats of police action.", again this has nothing to do with AF, (and is probably quite not true or quoted out of context).
There is no controversy, at best it is a minor incident, it is extremely bad PR, but not a controversy, planes break down all the time and passengers have to wait in the lounge for hours, nothing new here. FFMG (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
It has now been removed by yet another editor so it doesnt look like we have a consensus to add, the Wikipedia:Single-purpose account has re-added it again so I have deleted it again. I will leave a message for the SPA (User:Friendoftruth). MilborneOne (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
First of all, the Indian passengers did not have a transit visa, because they were not expecting an extended stop-over in Paris on their way from Boston to Mumbai. When the extended stop-over (of 10+ hours) is caused due to Air France's fault (in this case a technical snag), isn't it expected that Air France do the necessary arrangements for the stranded passengers? True, they could not accommodate them in hotels because of the visa issue. But, at least they could have provided them proper access to food, water, and sanitation facilities. Isn't this expected customer service? Air France itself apologized for the incident stating that it could have done a better handling of the situation.
And 10+ hours in not a "minor" delay...
Response to FFMG's complaint about the sentence "``In contrast, other non-Indian passengers (mostly holding EU, American, and Canadian passports) were accommodated in hotels near the airport." This is a factually correct statement, supported by the reason as to why it happened, namely, they had the right documents to get across the immigration section (mentioned in the next sentence). There was no insinuation of racism here.
If this incident is not noteworthy, how about the controversies section in other Wikipedia articles such as British airways. Seems like a case of omission of what is an inconvenient truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendoftruth (talk • contribs) 19:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
What you are saying makes no sense and you are avoiding all the points are raised.
  • The Indian nationals, (and probably some other nationals), had no visas, what was AF supposed to do about it?
  • Other nationals had visas and AF accommodated them, was AF not supposed to?
  • Is the fact that some nationals had to wait where they did the fault of AF? What else could AF have done?
  • There was a technical fault, it took 10 hours to fix, what else was AF supposed to do?
Sadly, 10 hours is not uncommon, Air India did 45 hours[6] in 2005, then 24 hours[7] in 2007, +24 hours [8] in 2008. I am sure that there are more, (I suggest you also read those articles to see how well the passengers were treated in those 3 cases). FFMG (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Technical fault in an Air France Flight, and Air France does nothing to accommodate the passengers? This is not a racial issue (again, I emphasize for FFMG, who somehow wants to always steer the discussion in that direction), but a customer service issue.
The 10+ hours of waiting time was in the immigration room alone. The total delay in reaching the destination (Mumbai) was 28 hours. Did you even read the referenced articles before rushing to defend Air France? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendoftruth (talk • contribs) 21:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
So basically, you are saying that the whole thing is about the technical problem and the way AF dealt with it? Your edits [9] make it unclear, (nationalities, laws and so on have nothing to do with a break down).
Why did you want to add it under a new sections, 'Controversies'? Where was the controversy in a plane breaking down?
Why add anything about the way the French visa laws work? or some claims of police actions? they have nothing to do about a plane breaking down, (or AF)?
If all it is, is a technical fault, was the 10hrs the worse for AF? What was special about that particular technical delay?
Why would that particular delay be noted as a controversy and the 3 example I noted for Air India are not mentioned in the Accidents and incidents section, they also involved planes broken down, no food and/or sanitation, threats of disturbances.
Where is the inconvenient truth(??) in a plane breaking down for 10hrs? FFMG (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
It is probably not worth arguing all the points, we dont have a consensus to add the information. MilborneOne (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Air France an unsafe airline?

Should there be something on the page about Air France having pretty shoddy safety standards? It's a disgrace that they have ruined 4 perfectly good aircraft since 2000 and killed in excess of 400 people doing so. I'm surprised that the European Union hasn't banned them from flying, quite frankly. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.30.98.180 (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, because you are making unreferenced, prejudicial assumptions about Air France's capability with respect to this accident. (i.e. There's nothing official at this time to suggest AF is at fault). Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

AF headquarters question

Is this the AF headquarters building? http://www.flickr.com/photos/ettorephotos/3173333343/ - If so, I think I will be able to upload this to Wikipedia on fair use grounds, as French law states that photos of recently built buildings are copyrighted. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

cargo fleet information updated

I dont know why the need for clarification, I have added new information for AF cargo future fleet with a valid reference.115.42.66.208 (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You edited three sections but only supplied one reference for the first section. The other two sections you appear to have removed referenced information. If your one reference covers all three sections then it should be qouted against each one. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Referencing issue fixed. IP informed of correct actions in future per WP:BRD and WP:3RR. Mjroots (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A380 Error

The page states that Air France is the only European airline to currently have the A380. This is untrue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufthansa#Fleet http://www.lufthansa.com/us/en/Lufthansa-A380-the-new-fascination-of-flight

It is true that it is currently the only airline in Europe to be operating it, though. This needs to be changed for accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.5.248 (talk) 03:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Spanish documents

Here are some corporate communication documents written in Spanish: http://corporate.airfrance.com/uploads/media/Incorporacion_del_50_Boeing777_Air_France.pdf http://corporate.airfrance.com/fileadmin/dossiers/documents/informes/chine_es_feb2009.pdf http://corporate.airfrance.com/uploads/media/airfrance_un_lider_mundial_del_transporte_aero_01.pdf http://corporate.airfrance.com/uploads/media/los_compromisos_air_france_.pdf WhisperToMe (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

AF head office

This English link: http://www.valode-et-pistre.com.wstub.archive.org/main.php?language=data/en/ui_system.xml And this French link: http://www.valode-et-pistre.com/main.php?language=data/fr/ui_system.xml WhisperToMe (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Els

Some Els I removed:

Archived links in English

Current links not in English

Archived links not in English

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Site plan is at http://www.airfrance.us/US/en/common/transverse/footer/plan_du_site.htm?popin=true WhisperToMe (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Other sources

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Seating Information In The Fleet Table

Hi,

I have tidied up the table a little, i think it looks better now. I used all the previous information.

The Airbus Narrowbody fleet (A318, A319, A320, A321) seating information seems to be incorrect. According to this is shows that they only have Y class seats. I know some have Business class. I dont know enough about air france to input this information. Would someone kindly populate this?

Cheers

--Boeing747-412 (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Transport of live animals for vivisection

Recently is has come to light that Air France is a major player in the transport of live animals for vivisection. There are claims that up to 1/5 primates that are transported die in transport and that the conditions are (including 60 hours of straight travel time) are neglectful with regards to the animals well being. This is said to cause major suffering. Ought it be included in the main article (under say, criticisms?)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.72.239.183 (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable source? Slasher-fun (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Air France Japan and Haiti support

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Destinations - likely error

In the destinations section, it says that Air France goes to all six inhabited continents. I think this is wrong. Australia is not listed on the destinations page and I have checked various airports in Australia and no Air France.

Could someone who is a regular editor / user of Wiki check me out and correct, if appropriate.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.96.50 (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

New Fleet Purchases

Someone with time want to take a look at this? http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2016223484_apeufranceairfranceklm.html - Fan Railer (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing firmed yet, the board has just allowed the company to deal the manufacturers to buy these planes. Slasher-fun (talk) 07:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

AF fleet

Added cargo fleet again in table sourced to the latest monthly update at www.ch-aviation.ch fleet lists section, I dont know why it was removed in the first place, couldnt create seprate section for it as it didnt work properly, maybe some else can try it. A brief section on AF Cargo in main article would be a good addition.

Historical fleet table referenced site is missing Boeing 707 and 727 which AF operated uptil the 1980s. 116.71.25.251 (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I have sightly adjusted the table so the Cargo Fleet goes at the bottom, i think it looks a little neater. Hope thats ok?

--Boeing747-412 (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

AF Cargo still have one 744BCF, they have not phased out the type. 119.155.33.19 (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Out of date photos

I have found that some of the photos on the Air France page are out of date especially those relating to the aircraft with the old livery and only 2 with the new livery. I am not asking for the out of date photos to be removed, but just more up to date photos to be uploaded thank you. --222.152.27.62 (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's that big of a deal that most of the aircraft are in the old livery, considering the new livery has only been used for a few years, while the old livery has been used since the 1970s. If you want to put new photos in, you can do so. Just take a look at Category:Air France on Wikimedia Commons and you might be able to find some good photos to add to this article. —Compdude123 18:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I was unable to add any photos from Wikimedia Commons, thanks for your opinion anyway.--210.55.215.173 (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

A380 Section

Hi. Do we really need a whole section just about the A380? We dont have one for the 747 etc. At the end of the day its just another aircraft. --JetBlast (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

No reason why the small number of relevant bits can just be in the history section. MilborneOne (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, because the Airbus 380 is a highlight to the Air France fleet and it is a very important aircraft more important than say the Boeing 747 or Boeing 777. --222.152.27.62 (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's really any more important than any other aircraft in their fleet. But apparently, other WP articles for airlines which have the A380 also have special sections devoted to this plane, and this should be discussed on the Airlines wikiproject talk page. Why is the A380 any more important than any other jetliner? It isn't, unless of course you are a die-hard Airbus fanboy, but WP ought not to appear to be written by die-hard Boeing or Airbus fanboys, or by the airline's marketing department for that matter (which probably promotes the A380 as their "flagship airliner," in other word their most important plane). —Compdude123 18:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with that statement. It is probably the most important aircraft in their fleet, but not only for Air France many airlines with Airbus 380's make it the highlight of their fleet by adding in different seats & features. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.215.173 (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

New mobile link

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Additional Air France information

If anyone has any problems with the additional information that I added to Air France's wikipedia page, please feel free to move references from Fr.wikipedia to en.wikipedia some of which are in English. All information has reliable resources on Fr.wikipedia, except the strengths and weaknesses section which is just personal opinion. If anyone has different opinions on strengths and weaknesses feel free to edit.--222.155.210.211 (talk) 06:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for personal opinion. That kind of stuff should go on your blog or any website other than WP. —Compdude123 (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Agree, the strenghts are complete POV, the weaknesses are poorly documented when not biaised. This has nothing to do here. Slasher-fun (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
The IP has admitted "personal opinion", and the edit was reverted by a different editor every time. I'm not sure there is an "edit war" at least one that has two parties. As to the rest of the contents (not admitted as personal opinion), they need to be merged into already-existing materials and not just pasted in one chunk. HkCaGu (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, some of the info added by this IP user is already in the article. And some of it, like the long-haul, medium-haul and short-haul stuff, should be deleted, as its presence does not meet the project policy/guidelines. The info (other than strengths/ weaknesses, which he did admit as being "personal opinion") was apparently translated from the French Wikipedia. Don't know what the airline guidelines are for that language but I'm not sure why it's even there. —Compdude123 (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I removed what was on the fr.wikipedia page for the same reasons they shouldn't be here as well. Slasher-fun (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The IP editor posted some comments in another section above, which I have moved down here:

Does anyone believe that the information I recently added on the Air France page from Fr.wikipedia is reliable and shouldn't be deleted? It does have reliable English resources which have not been added yet except for strengths and weaknesses which is personal opinion, feel free to add them or other resources that refer notability of the information. --222.155.210.211 (talk) 07:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
The Air France wikipedia page has been recently protected to avoid editing because of this issue and it causing a dispute. I welcome you to express your opinion on this subject and also to add any resources which support this information. Thank you once again --222.155.210.211 (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I have recently found some resources to support this information on the following websites: Air France corporate and Planecrashinfo.com which support my information. --222.155.210.211 (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Any secondary sources? Also I would not cite planecrashinfo.com. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, so are we in agreement that this information should not belong here? —Compdude123 (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm in agreement. HkCaGu (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Doesnt really add anything that if it was really notable would already be in the main text. MilborneOne (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Now that the block has expired and we seem to have sorted this out, the information could be removed. —Compdude123 (talk) 05:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Just when we thought this issue was settled, the IP user keeps re-adding the information, claiming there was "no agreement" on the talk page when in fact there was. Sigh... —Compdude123 (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Protected

I've fully protected this article at the WP:WRONGVERSION (as any good admin should) to force discussion here. I could block both of you for WP:EW but I want you both to thrash out the issue here. Once consensus has been reached, the article may be unprotected, otherwise it will be automatically unprotected after three days. Should further edit warring occur, then I will bring out the banhammer. Mjroots (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

What other person would you block, other than the IP user. More than one user reverted his edits. —Compdude123 (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The info is still being added by anons despite what I consider to be consensus to delete.--Dmol (talk) 08:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I posted a message on the User talk page, he replied as well he hasn't seen any discussion... Slasher-fun (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

why no mention of any crashes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.79.151.224 (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You mean besides the "Incidents and Accidents" section, redirecting to a whole article "Air France incidents and accidents" that is dedicated to this?... Slasher-fun (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Callsign

Someone edited the page and changed the callsign from "AIRFRANS" to "AIRFRANCE" a while ago, I am not sure if it has actually changed, or has it been the same, there is nothing saying that the call sign is "AIRFRANCE" on the FAA, ICAO, or IATA sites, I have found more sources saying it is "AIRFRANS". Should this be changed back? --- TheChampionMan1234 09:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

"AIRFRANS" is the correct call sign - per ICAO Document 8585 - Designators for Aircraft Operating Agencies, Aeronautical Authorities and Services. SempreVolando (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Air France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 18:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Air France. 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) 00:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Air France. 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) 19:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Air France. 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) 17:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Air France. 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) 19:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Air_France/Archive_1&oldid=1045763512"