Talk:United Airlines/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Any ideas what we should do about the new logo? I'm not familiar with fair use, etc. so I don't want to be the one to upload the new logo, but it might be worth mentioning in the body of the article. Also, United has the proposed livery for a new Dreamliner ---> [1] Safesler 13:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

ITN

This article has been nominated to appear on the Main Page In the news section at WP:ITN/C. There is consensus for posting, but I'm reluctant to put it up until:

  • the merger section gets a copyedit- every paragraph starts with "On X Y Z Date..." and
  • a little more information is added to the section. Some of the information in this source might be helpful there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

New Hub Information

According to the new company website, www.unitedcontinentalmerger.com, Houston George Bush Intercontinental Airport will be the combined company's largest hub not Chicago's O'hare.

"The new company’s corporate and operational headquarters will be in Chicago and it will maintain a significant presence in Houston, which will be the combined company’s largest hub. Additionally, the CEO will maintain offices in both Chicago and Houston."

http://www.unitedcontinentalmerger.com/press-release —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.102.228 (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed Narita and Honolulu as hubs as nowhere on the new merger website mention those 2 being hubs. For now, the airlines will continue to operate seperate until they receive a single operating certificate from the FAA. So, ORD is still the largest hub for the pre-merger UA and not the combined. Remember, they are still 2 seperate carriers until meger is completed. Snoozlepet (talk) 05:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I simply removed the whole section. Post-merger hub info should be in the merger section. Mentioning how any dests or hubs the blue-globe UA will have is ridiculous at this point. HkCaGu (talk) 07:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Another possible merger? Could US Airways wait 24 months to align with the new "United"

Could US Airways "Ugly Girl" be in another play (merger) with the "new" United? US Air might be thinking so, although it might encounter strong antitrust opposition from the DOJ because the "other three" (United Delta, American) would draw attention of the antitrust committee because of there size before the merger. You"ll be the judge.

This is the article that they see themselves in a merger http://www.thestreet.com/story/10896028/1/us-airways-eyes-merger-global-growth.html Arivera0426

The article does not specifically state which carrier it plans to combine with (possibly American Airlines). However, this is mere speculation at this time. Snoozlepet (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

United's International Rank (with respect to its size)

Recently, while reading the July traffic releases of US majors, I realized that United flew fewer revenue passenger miles than Delta. It also flew fewer Available Seat Miles. I am not sure about enplaned passengers. Both articles were from the Associated Press

Quotes: "The airline, [Delta], which is restructuring under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, said traffic fell 0.6 percent to 11.76 billion revenue passenger miles, an industry unit measuring one paying passenger flown one mile. Capacity fell to 13.77 billion available seat miles."

"Traffic grew to 11.07 billion revenue passenger miles in July from 10.7 billion in the same month a year ago" --United

Futhermore, year to date for United is 83,224,423 ASM, for Delta it is 86,092,478. (PR Newswire)

Again, if you look at the figures for passengers enplaned, Delta sits at 62,794,884 and United at 40,957,000. (PR Newswire

The articles can be found:

AP, United AP, Delta PR Newswire, United PR Newswire, Delta

Perhaps the Wiki article on United should reflect these changes. United is now number 3 in ASM and RPM and passengers enplaned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UAAC (talk • contribs)

No, United Airlines is still the number two carrier in the world. United's traffic only includes mainline ops, while delta's includes it regional subsidiaries. Delta, the actual delta, not comair, nor the contract carriers, flew 73,271,114 ASM making delta 12% smaller than United. Fry1234, KORD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fry1234 (talk • contribs)
But, aren't United's regionals merely under the umbrella of United Express? That is included in the figures.
"United Airlines (Nasdaq: UAUA - News) operates more than 3,700* flights a day on United, United Express and Ted to more than 210 U.S. domestic and international destinations from its hubs in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, Chicago and Washington, D.C."
Wouldn't it all be included in the System figures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by UAAC (talk • contribs)
I've always asked why we don't do it and always get the answer of, "they aren't part of UAL Corp". Delta may do it, but UAL doesn't. We should, but dont. Yet, with contract carriers, UA would still be larger than DL. Fry1234, KORD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fry1234 (talk • contribs)

Please don't remove pics of new livery

To all you IP users who hate the new livery and don't want to see it on this page: I don't like the new livery any more than you do, but have I ever removed the pics? No! As much as I hate the new livery and as much as I don't want to see it here, have you seen me remove any new livery pictures? I repeat, no. (If you don't believe me, feel free to look at the article history) They belong here, as much as you (or me) wish they weren't. In Wikipedia, you are supposed to write articles with a neutral, unbiased point of view, which means you shouldn't just get rid of a certain photo just because you don't like the livery shown on it. So please stop removing the livery. It belongs here, and it's not Wikipedia's fault that United has adopted this crappy new livery. (See, I hate it too! Don't get me wrong.) —Compdude123 (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

  • You obviously haven't paid much attention to the article. There is already a UA 777 in CO livery on this page, and it's been here for quite awhile. The pictures you keep adding aren't necessary and clutter the article. The information that UA adopted the CO livery is already present on this page and has been for quite sometime, and Wikipedia is not a place to advertise for United. We have their "new" livery pic on here, and the "new" logo in the info box. No need to turn the whole page into free advertising for the airline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.82.207.240 (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
You really think I haven't looked through this article in full? I know we already have a 777 pic in the new livery. As for the other pictures, I wasn't the one who originally added them and my re-adding of these pics is NOT an act of advertising/ marketing for United. I don't even work for them; otherwise I wouldn't be editing this article. Adding pictures of an airline's aircraft is not advertising; what makes you think that? Advertising looks like this. I absolutely do not support anything that looks like advertising but simply having those all those pics that you (and/or others) keep deleting is not. You say we already have a 777 pic in the new livery and the new logo. That's just two pictures. But there are twelve other pics of aircraft in earlier liveries too! To repeat what I said in my edit summary from the second time I re-added the photos, as much as you may hate the new livery, please stop removing it. (Remember, I hate it too) The photos of the new livery depict the BRAND of United Airlines, and last time I checked, this is the BRAND section. I think you have some sort of special attachment to the old livery, but you don't understand this wikipedia rule. I hate to break it to you, but as time goes on, more and more new livery pics will be added to this article. Just chill, dude! —Compdude123 (talk) 03:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Ok here's a compromise (hopefully): I deleted the 777 pic in the new livery and replaced it with a better picture of a 747 in the ugly new livery. I also re-added the photo of the aircraft tails. While that photo shows aircraft in the new livery, it also shows aircraft in two older liveries for comparison. To address your concern about that section becoming too crowded, I arranged the images in the brand section so that they were evenly spaced throughout the article. If this doesn't suit your needs, please give me a valid reason why and stop reverting my edits. Thanks, Compdude123 (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Split to History of United Airlines

The History section of this article has about as many sections as the History of Delta Air Lines article, and is longer than the History of Iberia Airlines and History of Qantas articles.  With UA continuing to grow the history section will just get longer. It is time that the UA history section gets its own article, and actually this was discussed before (Talk:United_Airlines/Archive_1#Split_suggestion). From that discussion, now UA and CO are under a single operating certificate, and have combined operations. Already since last month the article History of United Airlines exists. It will also make room for pictures of both old and UA liveries to be shown since there is greater space on the two pages. Plus it will be easier to organize and expand the UA history section on its own page, while keeping a summary and the latest developments on the main page, just like the DL article. Enginesmax (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I will support your move if, and only if, you keep a good summary of the airline's history that is more than a couple sentences long. It should be as long as the history section on British Airways, which also has its own history sub-article. This will allow room to keep pictures of historical aircraft and liveries such as the DC-10, the 747SP in the awesome-looking Rainbow Scheme (best livery ever!), and pics like the 777 and also the post-merger (and I should mention ugly) UA livery. So, if you do split the history section, please make the summary in this article much longer than a couple sentences. —Compdude123 (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Air New Zealand is another good example of how long the history section should be, despite having its history section split off into its own article. —Compdude123 (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Its been changed now to a large summary section. Enginesmax (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Great! Looks just wonderful! I liked that you split off the brand section as well as that was getting fairly long. —Compdude123 (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Depiction of UA's changes in livery

The third DC-10 delivered to United in 1972 in the Stars and Bars livery
(image and caption as of this version)
Two planes at Portland International Airport in the Stars and Bars livery (May 1973).
(image and caption afterwards)

Prompted by Compdude123 (talk · contribs)'s three reversions:

I am bringing this edit war here. Let me summarize the history from my perspective.

When I encountered this 26 January 2012 version of United Airlines, I noticed United Airlines#History contained six images, five of which displayed UA's aircraft livery. Having become aware via this commons project of the existence of the 2nd image at right, an image that depicts UA's "Stars and Bars" livery of two planes at Portland International Airport, I made this change, supplying 'replace "stars and bars" image with one that depicts the stars' as my edit summary. In response, Compdude123 (talk · contribs) reverted my change, asserting "Undid revision 473398759 by 72.244.206.189 previous image better, as United was a launch customer for the DC-10, and it only makes sense to have a DC-10 pic here"; I reverted ('rv the rv since image better depicts "stars and bars" mentioned in the caption; take rv to the talk page, keeping WP:OWN in mind'), prompting Compdude123 to revert me ("Undid revision 473461953 by 72.244.206.178 DC-10 pic makes more sense, You are welcome to complain about this on my talk page") and then make this change ("remove "stars and bars" info from caption; not necessary") I revert ("rv the rv; you just did a second rv of my good faith edit ; take this to this article's talk page so that others can contribute to our dispute") Compdude123, skirting the letter of WP:3RR, waited a bit then reverted me again ("Undid revision 473467520 by 72.244.206.178 Don't revert my revert; respond on my talk page. Thanks!")

I am of the opinion that my initial change was an article improvement made in good faith, and does not warrant reversion. Compdude123's assertion that it "only makes sense to have a DC-10 pic here" ignores the theme of the photographs in the history section, which is to depict the changes to UA's livery. Compdude123 is welcome of course to expand the history section and cover UA's role in the launch of the DC-10, but that should be done in a way that is consistent with WP:SS and WP:SPLIT and the current contents of United Airlines#History and History of United Airlines. Thanks. 72.244.204.211 (talk) 07:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget that the DC-10 is also painted in a livery, too. It's not like it's just bare metal. Would you have any objections to putting the stars and bars livery in the brand section of this article? —Compdude123 (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I thought one of the other 150 watchers of this article might have had an opinion. Since they don't, its your opinion vs. mine, and there are some practical reasons for me to think you have strong opinions on this matter:
Unless other editors comment favorably on the merits of my argument, I am deferring to your judgment. 72.244.204.3 (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, to end this dispute, I will move the DC-10 image to the fleet history section as it is mentioned there that UA was a launch customer for the DC-10, and so the the picture will fit better there anyway. And I will re-add your stars and bars picture to the history section. Now you may ask me why I didn't just do this in the first place and my answer will be why didn't I think of that in the first place. And I apologize for my behavior of "owning" this article and I will try and stop myself from acting that way towards you or others in the future. Do not let this hinder you from continuing to contribute to WP, though most users would recommend creating an account (but that's ultimately up to you, of course). —Compdude123 (talk | contribs) 05:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Premium cabin upgrades and rebranding

United announce that they will be upgrading and rebranding its premium cabins on international flights according to this source: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/united-rebrands-premium-cabins-upgrades-160500453.html. I updated to the cabin section of the article but I am confused which cabin will be renamed to what. Can someone put the information in the right place in the article when someone gets a chance? Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources on United's move to the Willis Tower

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

erroneous map of United Airlines destinations

File Uniteddestinations.png is erroneous.

United Airlines' West Africa destinations are Accra (Ghana) and Lagos (Nigeria) as is stated correctly in the article.

The map instead indicates Ivory Coast and Nigeria.

Tomrohwer (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:United Airlines/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jetstreamer (talk · contribs) 18:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC) I'll start reviewing the article soon.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). This section needs much more references; this another one has dead links.
2c. it contains no original research. Original research found here.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. I'm failing the nomination, as per the comments immediately below this table.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment Jetstreamer, you understand that this review cannot take the five months that the last one (which was very similar to this one) did, correct? --Rschen7754 09:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I do.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure I'll get yelled at for this, but I'm jumping and failing this GAN for multiple reasons. First, it's been three weeks and Compdude isn't addressing any of the concernsfrom the last two batches, despite clearly being on and editing. Second, there are a large number of tags on the article that should have been addressed before a GAN was started. Third, there are a lot of major additions being thrown in by users, affecting article stability. Fourth, just from a skim I can tell the article needs a lot of work, most of which Jetstreamer has noted so far, but this is not near even GAN level, let alone GA. Lastly, the last review took five months, and honestly, that was in much better shape than this article is. This one would take an extra few months on top of the time invested. Jetstreamer is more than welcome to continue reviewing the article, but it shuld be outside of the GAN process for the time being. If there's a problem then ask on the GAN talk page, I'm standing firm in this decision. Wizardman 23:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry about not addressing the issues this article had. I let you down. Even to begin with, I neglected to carefully check for basic issues before putting this up for GA review. I'm really sorry about not following through and fixing the problems; Jetstreamer you deserve an apology. I don't know why, but it seems that I just lost all motivation to improve this article. Ah, I'm so angry at myself right now!! Okay, I won't bungle a review like this again, now that I know the consequences. —Compdude123 01:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

History

  • 1st paragraph
    • Question: Are the first two sentences supported by the same reference? The reference in question has been archived.
    • The following two sentences are unsourced. I've marked them with a {{cn-span}} tag.
 Fixed —Compdude123 18:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
    • The infobox says the airline was founded on 6 April 1926, but the text says it first flew a day earlier. This needs to be fixed. More confusion is added when the infobox claims operations were started in 1927! Furthermore, please cleanup the infobox by taking references out of it. Please bear in mind that infoboxes are just a summary of the entire article, so there's no need to source anything there than can be sourced in the mainspace.
 Done – I fixed the date that it was founded. It didn't match the reference for some reason. And the date for commencing ops, I changed that to April 6, 1926 because that makes more sense. I moved all the refs out of the infobox and moved them to the history section, though I deleted some to prevent citation overkill. The only ref I kept in the infobox was the one for the subsidiaries, because the infobox is the only place where subsidiaries are mentioned. —Compdude123 00:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • 2nd paragraph
    • Fully unsourced. Marked as above
 Fixed —Compdude123 18:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • 3rd paragraph
  • 4th paragraph
    • Nothing to comment
  • 5th paragraph
    • Entirely unsourced
 Fixed —Compdude123 18:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • 6th paragraph
    • Is it fully referenced by the two sources placed at their end?
Unfortunately no, but I will find sources ASAP. —Compdude123 18:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 Fixed – It is so much easier to find historical sources and news articles for this article than it was for Alaska Airlines! —Compdude123 18:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • 7th paragraph
    • Definitely needs more sourcing, unless the single reference included supports it. Just marked the last sentences as unsourced.
 Fixed —Compdude123 18:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually  Half done – I found an archived version of the first ref in that paragraph, and now I see it doesn't provide support for all of the statements preceding it. Will find sources soon; I'll try and get to it later today. —Compdude123 18:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 Done – More sources have been added. —Compdude123 18:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • 8th, 9th and 10th paragraphs
    • They are fully unsourced.
Fixed —Compdude123 18:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • 11th paragraph
    • Made use of {{US$}} as above
    • Last sentence is partly unreferenced
 Fixed —Compdude123 18:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • 12th paragraph
    • Is it neccesary for it to be a single sentence? I mean, can it be merged into another paragraph? BTW, it's unsourced.
minus Removed – It doesn't even add much info to the article anyway. —Compdude123 18:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • 13th paragraph
    • It is mentioned that the company resumed merger talks with Continental. When these merger talks started? It's not mentioned in the previous paragraphs
 Fixed —Compdude123 18:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Unsourced stuff was also marked
 Fixed —Compdude123 00:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • 14th paragraph, 15th paragraph and 16th paragraph
 Done —Compdude123 00:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I won't fail the nomination for now, but this section is in bad need of more references. More review to come.--Jetstreamer Talk 03:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It's been a week. Is the review over? Did the reviewer put it on hold? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Why the rush? No, it's not over. I'll let you know when it is. I will continue reviewing when I have the time to do so. It will help if you fix the above issues.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Predecessors

  • Please fix the ″80+″ in the first paragraph. This paragraph has also an issue with citation overkill. I suggest placing an inline citation at the end of each entry in order to clarify which source supports what.
 Done – A few sources were removed. I would have put them with each entry but I don't own those books and I would have no way of knowing what ref goes with what company. —Compdude123 00:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The las paragraph is unsourced; I've marked it as such.
 Fixed —Compdude123 00:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I strongly suggest merging the section into the previous one, as the content is related to the history of the company.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 Done – Made a sub-section of the History section. —Compdude123 00:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Corporate affairs

Headquarters

  • The first paragraph has two dead links. I don't see in the single alive link that the former headquarters had ″long-time″ been located at Elk Grove Township; this supporting reference dates from 2006, it can be used by no means to support a long-time period. I'm afraid this is original research. In the same paragraph, I don't see the encyclopedic content of mentioning that the airline considered moving the headquarters to thred different addresses.
 Fixed – Removed unverifiable "long-time" blurb, fixed the dead links, and removed last sentence (meaningless to anyone unfamiliar with Chicago). —Compdude123 01:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph has a dead link. I've made use of {{US$}} here.
 Fixed dead links. —Compdude123 01:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Second and third paragraphs are repetitive, as both mention that Willis Tower is located in downtown Chicago. Furthermore, the announcement the airline would move the headquarters is not important here, what matters is the current location, so please remove the first sentence of the third paragraph entirely. There's a dead link in the third paragraph as well.
 Already done —Compdude123 18:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Two reference have been archived.

Other facilities

  • I guess the first reference (BTW, it's dead) supports the first two sentences of the paragraph, so I moved it in accordance to WP:CITEFOOT. Moreover, {{convert}} has been used, and a reference has been archived.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I found an identical version of that first reference on another website, and it doesn't back up any of the claims in this article. I couldn't even find any info on their "fact sheet" from their website. Thus, the info was removed. —Compdude123 01:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Environmental strategy

  • The last part of the first paragraph is unsourced; please also note that its single source is dead.
minus Removed first paragraph. —Compdude123 01:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • {{Convert}} has been used again; {{nowrap}} has been removed
  • Two references have been archived.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you please try and finish reviewing ASAP? I'm going to be more busy next week, and will have less time to address your concerns. Thanks, Compdude123 01:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Labor

  • A reference has been archived.
  • I've merged the last unsourced paragraph into the previous one.
  • Unsourced content has been marked using {{cn-span}}.--Jetstreamer Talk 01:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 Fixed – Found a source to prove that UA's pilots are represented by the ALPA. As for the unsourced sentence you marked, I just got rid of it because it seemed unimportant. That sentence has been there for at least a month, and you'd think they would be on strike by now. Hasn't happened, fortunately. —Compdude123 00:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Brand image

  • Both pages of the sole reference have been archived.
  • I've marked the second paragraph as unsourced. Most of the info included in the third one is not present in the aforementioned source, which I've tagged with {{additional citation needed}}.
  • Where do the dates appearing below each of the three-logo set come from? Furthermore, I think the set needs a caption.
  • The "Rising blue" livery mentioned in the figure caption is not discussed in the text. Thus, the figure caption is also unsourced.--Jetstreamer Talk 02:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Marketing themes
  • It is true that there's a link pointing at another article, but the content included here should be sourced as well. Therefore, the first paragrapgh should at least include a reference.
  • This reference is a link rot.
  • Made use of {{US$}} (and the adjustment due to inflation is also interesting).
  • The other reference has been archived.
  • The Copyright Term Extension Act is linked, but it won't hurt anyone to have an inline citaton to the related stuff here.--Jetstreamer Talk 03:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Sponsorships
  • The first paragrapgh is unsourced.
  • As for the NYG-related sentence, the source does not mention that the airline became their sponsor following merger with Continental.--Jetstreamer Talk 03:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll be continuing with this tomorow...--Jetstreamer Talk 03:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Destinations

  • The section introduction includes a reference to a blog, which is bo no means considered a reliable source. I'm removing it. Furthermore, if the airline is among the ones that fly to all six inhabited continents, it would be also interesting to mention which are the others.
  • The caption in the map is wrong, as it shows countries, not destinations. Please correct it. Morevoer, it should be dated, i.e. as of when it is valid.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Route network

  • The first paragraph is not supported by the reference provided.
  • Where in the reference supporting the second paragraph is said that the agreement was not reciprocal?
  • The reference backing the Guanghzou service is dead.
  • The reference for the launch of services to Accra is undated, so it's hard to verify the date provided. Also, the source doesn't say that this destination was the airlines' first in Africa. Furthermore, the source related to Lagos services announces the commencement of flights. We need here a reference verifying that services effectively started.
  • I have reorganised the stuff a bit, removed the part saying that flights to Shangai were launched in 2011 (the supporting reference is dated at 2010), and three references were archived.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Codeshare agreements

Only two of the airlines mentioned are provided with references, one of them being dead.

I have added 2 missing airlines. The dead link has been replaced with another that also sources the other airlines in the list. I can't find any source that says United codeshare with all Star Alliance airlines, as the article leads me to believe. However the reference i use also leads you to believe that. --JetBlast (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Overall, there are unsourced statementes that need to be fixed. My main concern here is that, being the airline one of the largest worldwide, the sub-section is slanted towards the last years. I will require considerable expansion for the section, mostly considering that United Airlines destinations and United Express destinations limit to list the destinations (the later being almost unsourced at all).--Jetstreamer Talk 22:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Fleet

Current

  • I've tagged the sub-section as having a citation overkill issue almost immediately after I started reviewing the article and nothing changed since then. Supposedly, the fleet table is supported by seven different references, but it is unclear which of them supports what. Please follow the inline citation guidelines here.
  • Aside from the poor English, another concern of mine is how encyclopedic can be the fact that some aircraft are ″to receive winglets″. Please remove all the unnecessary information from the Notes column.--Jetstreamer Talk 02:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
minus Removed — Notes removed. Where not notable as per guidelines, other detail was not sourced. I struggled to find anything to support the other detail that was from a credible source. We don't really need the notes. British Airways for example doesn't --JetBlast (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Fleet history

  • The reference supporting the table is dead.
  • The fleet history has little information regarding the historical fleet, and only mentions recent orders. The table should be a summary of companion text that is not present. Furthermore, if that info is included in History of United Airlines (I doubt it does), it is scattered all over that article and fleet-related text is hard to find. This sub-section is in need of a (more or less) thorough description of the fleet evolution throughout the years.--Jetstreamer Talk 02:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

United Continental Holdings Fleet table

Please can we have a look at this Talk:United Continental Holdings Thanks - --JetBlast (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Seating Configs

Hi, I have tweaked and referenced all the seating configs. The problem is the 777-200 & 200ER are not separated on the United website. I am struggling to find what seats are in the 200 and the 200ER. Do we merge the 2 types on here in order to source the seating config? Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

On-time arrival rate

User:Dilwala314 has a point. The on time arrival rate of an airline, updated perhaps once a year, is at least as encyclopedic as its current financials. --NeilN talk to me 19:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. You shouldn't have reverted it back without consensus. --JetBlast (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
NeilN, i urge to stop edit waring and wait for consensus. --JetBlast (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I have the same urging for you. This is as much "travel guide" information as is the list of hubs, the frequent flyer program, the codeshare agreements, the fleet info, the cabin info... --NeilN talk to me 20:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
You know full well that i am not. You have been here a while and should know better. Disappointing.... --JetBlast (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey, at least I opened a talk page discussion, something I would expect an experienced editor would do when faced with a good-faith constructive edit. --NeilN talk to me 20:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Please note that IP 68.119.73.36 has been warned for edit warring on this article. AfricaTanz (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

JetBlast do you want to ask for a WP:3O? --NeilN talk to me 15:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion - hello all. Sourced information about the on-time arrival rate of an airline seems perfectly relevant; while it's not clear that it belongs in the lede, I certainly see not reason why it shouldn't be included in the article. Mandalini (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I cant see that the on-time arrival rate is really encyclopedic and is more suited to wikitravel, if secondary sources make observations that it is particularly low or high than that could be mentioned as part of the history with consideration for weight in the article, otherwise not needed. MilborneOne (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
How is the list of hubs, the frequent flyer program, the codeshare agreements, the fleet info, the cabin info encyclopedic, then? --NeilN talk to me 17:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like an OTHER STUFF argument, certainly not the question being asked. If you would like to raise them as separate issues then suggest ask at WP:AIRLINES as they dont relate to one article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
So you think on-time arrival rate isn't encyclopedic but haven't thought about the "other stuff", right? That's fair. I've raised the topic here. --NeilN talk to me 17:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Other stuff means just because something else exists it is not a valid argument in any discussion. So this discussion is only concerned with on time arrival rate and not other stuff in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Yep, been around here a long time and am quite well aware of OTHERSTUFF. I disagree with your interpretation though. OTHERSTUFF is usually applied cross-article and the entire essay focuses on that. We definitely look at "other stuff" within articles when considering WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, consistency, completeness, etc. --NeilN talk to me 19:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hub ranking between ORD and IAH

There has been some confusion on hub rankings for Chicago-O'Hare and Houston. A couple of users recently changed the introduction on this article, the O'Hare, and the Houston Bush Airport pages saying that O'Hare is the largest hub for United and Houston is the second-largest hub. Just a note, Houston is indeed the largest UA hub (based on passengers the airline carried but the second-largest based on the number of flights) and O'Hare is the second-largest hub. News articles and various press releases specifically state the airline's biggest hub will be in Houston. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 07:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

real problems with the information box on founding date

From the corporate standpoint, I am sure that United likes to brag about its founding as Varney in 1927. However, Wikipedia should be more neutral and honest.

Like it or not, the current United Airlines is United in name only. It's actually Continental Airlines that took on the United name probably because United's name is more established. The same thing happened with Continental when it was swallowed up by Texas International.

To follow the corporate lineage, it would be more honest for Wikipedia to:

1. list the founding of the United Airlines name, which is 1931.

2. More honest, is to list the predecessor airline, which is Texas International.

I will attempt to make a change. If you disagree, you should explain your reasoning. If you just change it without explanation, this should be considered as a bad faith, badly documented change that should be changed back. This is because this is an important issue.

Once again, merely changing my change without explanation is a bad faith change. Let's discuss!

EatingGlassIsBad (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

real problems with advertising

This article has real problems bordering on advertising. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising board or a corporate version of LinkedIn.

I removed the mailing address for the company. Why have it?

There is a long section about BusinessFirst and other things related to cabin classes. This seems like advertising. It is not encyclopedic. What would be encyclopedic is mention of an airline developing business class (it wasn't United). EatingGlassIsBad (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree This page has been substantially whitewashed. Compare it with what the page looked like in 2011: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Airlines&oldid=414913527 Also, someone deleted this talk page history, that is also not acceptable! Can someone relink the archives to the top of the talk page? I suggest this page should be locked. It's undergone horrible whitewashing and POV edits from anonymous users. Jeff Carr (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

United cutting its Houston-Paris route

Chronicle story about the airline cutting its Houston-Paris route:

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

POOR English in United Club JFK section

Dear Wiki-nerds,

I think some bozo is doing some very bad editing of the United Club article and I wanted to call you attention to this problem. --50.141.33.7 (talk) 06:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Narita really a hub

I question if NRT qualifies as a hub anymore- there are only 2 westbound (non-US) destinations now for United at NRT: Seoul and Singapore. Every other flight is obviously going to an existing one in the United States.

User:crescent22 (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on United Airlines. 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.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on United Airlines. 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.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Airlines/Archive_2&oldid=1078622007"