Jump to content

Talk:Air Canada

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeAir Canada was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 23, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed

Historic Fleet

[edit]

Wouldn't it be better if the historic fleet section was sorted by chronology rather than by name, as I personally find it rather weird having a historic thing not being in chronology (like in a textbook, it would list the names in alpha rather than by date). NagamasaAzai 00:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air Canada operated DC-8-73Fs until 1994 and at that time was credited as the longest DC-8 operator (34 years). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.48.161 (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The historic fleet table can now be sorted by date, just click the button. SynergyStar (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why doesn't the historic fleet information list the Avro Jetliner that Air Canada flew for a short time? Avro built one of the first jet-engine airliners in the world, but shortsighted government priorities would not allow Avro to build both the jetliner and fighter jets for the Korean War. The prototype Avro jet was used by Air Canada to serve New York but was later scrapped. GBC (talk) 06:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sorry, my mistake. The Avro Jetliner C-102 was designed for Trans-Canada Airlines (Air Canada), but there was a change in TCA leadership and the new man didn't want to fly jetliners. So the prototype simply made a flight to New York that set a record, came home by train, was made flyable again, then declared surplus and donated to the Canadian aviation museum, which scrapped most of the plane. I actually thought I had read somewhere that the jetliner was in passenger service for a short time, then scrapped because, presumably, there was no manufacturer support for maintenance and repairs. GBC (talk) 06:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet Tables

[edit]

I've made some changes to the routes column - showing geographical destinations of various aircraft - feel free to revert to only short/medium/long haul if it doesn't meet your approval. I'd like to reduce the active role I've had in editing this article. Most things that I've wanted to do have been accomplished. Regards--Rosetown 23:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great! I really think that it is a great addition to the article. Greenboxed 22:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed all mention of replacement schedules because the schedules are very gradual and unpredictable - for example the A340-500 will be operating Toronto Shanghai effective around July 31 and will continue in the fleet for some time (I don't know how long). Same with the 340-300s, they may continue to be in the fleet for some time.
Aircraft replacement are also dependent on Air Canada exercising their options on various aircraft types. If the options are not exercised or only partly exercised, then older aircraft are likely to remain in the fleet longer than originally planned.--Rosetown 05:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page reorganisation

[edit]

I've moved Historic fleet below former subsidiaries, and Maple leaf lounge below On board, to improve article flow and to keep Project XM references closer together.--Rosetown 04:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go Discount

[edit]

removed, it's a minor point, and when booking one is presented with a myriad of choices, one of which is forgoing checked baggage.--Rosetown 06:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai?

[edit]

Does anyone know anything about AC flying to Dubai? It was added into a couple articles, but there is no imformation to support that. Greenboxed 18:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard anything about it all, nor has their been any discussion else where from what I've seen, nor, of course, has their been anything from AC. From what I've heard, there are a few places they'd like to go before Dubai. -Phoenix 21:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you see it anywhere please revert it immediately. AC always issues a press release whenever they introduce new routes. There are a few pathologically obsessed dreamers who edit airline articles and who seem to be unable to separate their desires from the truth. What can you do?
I've reverted with (not true), I suppose I should have reverted with (citation needed). Nonetheless, a citation from a reliable source is required. Blogs & forums, and worse still, rumours, to my mind, don't cut it. I prefer using AC press releases when it comes to new route announcements.--Rosetown 23:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter with what text you revert incorrect information, as long as a somewhat explainable edit summary is left. -Phoenix 02:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Air Canada has premission to fly to Dubai from Toronto which is stopping Emirates from flying into Toronto more than three times a week. Other wise don't you think Emirates would be flying into Toronto more often? They are of course the fastest growing airline in the world. 216.86.124.195 (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 787 conversion of options into orders

[edit]

ACs press release is unclear. 37 orders & 23 options for a total of 60. They've dropped 2 777 orders that were to be delivered in 2009. I believe that these are the 2 freighters. The scuttlebut on airliners.net seems to suggest that they have retained their options for 18 additional 777s. The 777 orders are for 17 including the one leased 777. At the moment, Boeing news haven't said anything that sheds light. SEDAR hasn't been updated yet. Guess we'll just have to be patient.--Rosetown 21:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guangzhou Service

[edit]

Does anybody know when Air Canada will be flying to Guangzhou from Vancouver? On the Guangzhou airport article, it reads that it will be starting Summmer of 2007 but in this article it is nowhere to be seen. Can anyone give me some sources? Thanks! Bucs2004 05:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Guangzhou information comes from a National Post article published shortly after Canada signed a bilateral air agreement with China - in 2005. The information is quite old, and in my opinion, not reliable anymore. Zeus1234 05:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

767-300ER

[edit]

Does anyone know that which route is the 767-300er with the new business class seat flying on? will the new seat be in for the flight to beijing in the end of Aug. and beginning of sept. thanks

Air Canada Jetz

[edit]

At present, AC has 42 A320s in the fleet, 5 of which are operated by Air Canada Jetz. This leaves 37 aircraft in regular passenger service, 29 of which are XMd, leaving 8 with old interiors. I have no idea if AC intends to redo the Jetz fleet as well.--Rosetown 17:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Can anyone see the SVG logo for Air Canada on top of the infobox? It looks blank to me, other airline pages' logos show up. Enigma3542002 19:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC) Referring to: [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg]][reply]

Ah, showing it as a thumbnail makes it show up. Enigma3542002 19:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

I have started adding some references and am unsure about what style of referencing i should use. The article contains both embedded links and footnote references. I think we should change these all to the same style, but which one? I Think we should use embedded links, but also have the reference listed in the references section as discribed in the wikipedia: citing sources article. Greenboxed 20:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there are over 40 embedded HTML links in the article and to redo them all will be tedious. Citing sources asks one to follow the existing convention used in the article. Unfortunately, both conventions have been followed in this article with the vast majority being embedded links. Further, IMHO, the average wikipedia reader is likely to be more comfortable using embedded links as opposed to using references.--Rosetown 02:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed inappropriate tag - The editor, nonetheless, has very valid observations, and hopefully, will contribute to the discussion that her/his editing has spawned.--Rosetown 01:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When there is disagreement regarding the style of references citing sources calls for a consensus of all editors - So, if necessary, all editors of this article, please voice your opinion.--Rosetown 02:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought I'd point out that over half of the references come from Air Canada's own site, which is fine, but about 20 of the "50" references are just sources for the fleet section. Not trying to play devil's advocate, but all those really are just one source. --Phoenix (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - it's true that many of the sources are from Air Canada's own site - when it comes to statistics and press releases I find it to be reliable (stripped of advertising and peacocking). That aside, I web search for other sources. Canradio comes to mind - thanks to you. When it comes to opinion (he said, she said) I certainly look to outside sources. Still, what got this started, is referencing, and I think you have a wealth of experience in this area, so please entertain us with your musings respecting this.--Rosetown 04:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's just one guy running Canradio, so there may be an issue with verifying that source. --Phoenix (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, his information is accurate, and other sites, widely quoted by editors of airline articles on wikipedia, are dependent on individuals to contribute updates, as opposed to investigative journalism. I'm still hoping , where this article suffers from inadequate referencing, that you will provide some guidance, and make some contributions that improve referencing.

I've taken a bit of time to reflect, review, and now to muse. I've reread the last 1000 edits of this article, and the article, IMO, better reflects the current state of affairs of AC, a going concern. I wish I was able to review this article from its genesis, to determine if some historical referencing was inadvertently removed, but I don't think that is possible. Nonetheless, I believe that most editors are eager to improve this article while respecting Wikipedia objectives and quidelines. I think it's incumbent on all editors, other than instances of obvious vandalism, to assume that others have the best intentions, and where they fail, to courteously confine ones observations to the facts.--Rosetown 01:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too busy to make further contributions. Fence to paint, deck to build, patio stones to lay etc. It's been a pleasure working with all of you. Regards--Rosetown 17:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

[edit]

I created an archive for this page, and discovered that the talk page had half of the discussions on it twice...someone screwed something up, i dont really know when. Anyways, by the time I had noticed the srew up, I had already created the 2nd talk page (which now isnt really needed), but I wont delete it, because it will just have to be made over again soon. I guess we can just add more stuff to it in a couple weeks (there is 9 discussions on it now.) Greenboxed 21:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry - if someone is able to rescue the archive, they will. In the meantime, we'll just have to live with it.--Rosetown 02:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia previously Other Information

[edit]

Recommend deleting Trivia section, including the tag, and all information contained therein. I‘ve been guilty of dumping non-encyclopedic information into Other Information, from various sections, unsure what to do with it. Nothing contained therein, in my opinion, is worthy of weaving into the main article. Most of the items would be impossible to verify, many could be considered advertising or peacocking, others are truly trivia. Since I‘m not editing for the summer, do what you may.--Rosetown 00:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Air Canada Zip Airlines Logo.gif

[edit]

Image:Air Canada Zip Airlines Logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Aeroplan logo.jpg

[edit]

Image:Aeroplan logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hub Cities

[edit]

This PDF [1] shows ACs take on hubs. I also flew AC on January 10, 2008, and their inflight magazine, Horizons(January 2008 edition), shows Calgary as a hub in their route structure maps. Seems that some folks out there don't want to recognize this, despite the fact that it is properly referenced. Regards--Rosetown (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was referenced sometime last month as I was one that removed it before, but since a reference was pointed out it's fine. Perfectly referenced as only Air Canada can say what a hub is for them. Ben W Bell talk 23:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

240 destinations?

[edit]

On the destination page I count 99 airports, where does 240 come from? Even including the Jazz destinations (which shouldn't be included) the total is still not even close to 240... Thankyoubaby (talk) 02:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References 2

[edit]

I've just finished a major revision of references. If it doesn't meet with your standards, please post here. I won't be offended!!! --Rosetown (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Airbus A340

[edit]

The 2 A340-300s have NOT left the fleet yet. They were suppoused to by know, but 777 deliveries are being delayed due to the strike at boeing. Air Canada's fleet page still shows the A340. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.239.162 (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Air Canada's website shows them as still in service. According to postings in airliners.net/civil aviation, not a cite-able source, these aircraft are often operating Toronto/Montreal-Europe, due to the Boeing strike having delayed delivery of a 777-300ER. So this is the best cite-able source we have at the moment. All information requires referencing according to Wikipedia guidelines.--Rosetown (talk) 05:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S&P/TSX 60 companies

[edit]

I intend to revert an unreferenced edit by Svgalbertian indicating Air Canada is on a list of delisted S&P/TSX 60 companies. As far as I can determine S&P have additions/deletions to their indices. Delisting is removal from a stock exchange and thus is an inappropriate and misleading title. --Rosetown (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Onboard

[edit]

Project XM is soon drawing to a close, and the whole onboard section needs a major rewrite. Meals and Beverage service, Entertainment, and Newspapers and Magazines need to be woven into the various class of service with information pertaining to that specific class. Thus eliminating the need for these sections, and introducing clarity to the article as a whole. Please help.--Rosetown (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed the rewrite. Please review for mistakes and possible improvements--Rosetown (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I've completed a reorganization, but everything in the Onboard section still needs a thorough scrutiny, from as many eyes as possible.--Rosetown (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article improvements

[edit]

Section titles have been simplified, and long tables formatted to take up less space, and relevant pictures added. SynergyStar (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove the table relating to the fleet of the 1970s. It's merit is questionable, the only interesting tidbits being orders for the Concord and SST. This does not deserve a table. Perhaps a sentence or paragraph.

--Rosetown (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now further expansion of the history section has been done, and references added to each section. SynergyStar (talk) 06:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tables, Images, and Content Sections and Subsections

[edit]

General:

It's very important to be aware that many computers are older, and that there is a rapidly growing markets for netbooks. These computers do not have large display parameters. Some are as low as 480X800. So, even if the pc that you are using to edit appears to display your edits well in preview form, it doesn't mean that it will display well on computers with limitations on display size. Presently I am viewing websites on a 480X800 Asus EEE pc. 2009 sales for netbooks are projected to reach 35,000,000 and by 2012, sales are projected to be around 120,000,000. This is huge. With this in mind please consider the following.

Images:

Always place images in the lowest subsection. Otherwise, the image may cover the edit tag of a content section or subsection, thus preventing some from editing the lowest section possible.

Tables:

Tables always occupy the space they need and if images are occupying space to the right of the table the images will cover part of the table on pcs with limited display space. ie 800 verses 1024 verses larger display size.

So what you see on you pc is not necessarily what others will see. So, I'm asking all editors to consider what others might see. --Rosetown (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. I've made some edits because the resulting reformatting resulted in the sections after the fleet section adding a blank right margin. Hopefully the result is still ok for edit links, etc. SynergyStar (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So far, your subsequent edits haven't interfered with edit links on my 480X800 display. Thank you --Rosetown (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image placement and conventions

[edit]

There is a convention that aircraft should have their noses point to the centre of the page. So, if the nose is pointing right the image should be placed on the left side and if the nose is pointing right it should be placed on the right. The beginning of this article follows this convention and then it starts to fall apart. The convention makes sense. Think of the nose as an arrow pointing to the centre. Visually the eye follows the arrow and the article is easier to read. Still, it is a convention and as such cannot be followed in all instances. Nonetheless, it's a convention that should be born in mind when placing images. It should be easy to apply in sections that are text based because word wrap works well on all pc displays.

It is also sensible to place images in an appropriate section. First class meals with first class text. Jazz aircraft in Jazz related sections.

The notion being that the images and the text relate to one another. I hope I am clear. --Rosetown (talk) 03:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. Are you asking for a consensus to rearrange the images, or hoping someone else will do it for you? - BillCJ (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to respond. The convention is something that I have read a long time ago in the myriad of wikipedia quidelines. Perhaps style, but its something that I no longer have the ardor to research. So, when you ask if I'm hoping someone else will do it for me, you might be correct and I do understand your point. I think I was trying to encourage other editors to think about image placement rather than to do the work for me. Motivation, being at times muddied, can be difficult to discern. --Rosetown (talk) 05:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

777-300ER domestic service

[edit]

I checked Air Canada reservation website and found no flights to and from Calgary operated with Boeing 777-300ER, the biggest plane serving Vancouver and Toronto from Calgary is with an A320 and for Montreal, it is an A319. So the fleet table should be review regarding the Boeing 777-300ER. 70.81.82.151 (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet section to its own article proposal

[edit]

Perhaps move to its own article. It affects the readability of the article as it stands. LibStar (talk) 05:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support (note: this is the version i see) Wow, the fleet section has gotten quite good—quite detailed. Photos of each model, notes about routes served, seating and interior equipment, plus subsections on the Jazz and Historic fleet. I would say it is getting large enough that a dedicated article for the Air Canada fleet is appropriate. If we move the current content to a new article, the main page should still carry a list the current fleet, and general overview of the fleet, much like other airlines have. But on the fleet article, we can have the full details as displayed currently, and even more, if we have it (historical photos?) and it would be completely appropriate to expand the Air Canada fleet article. —fudoreaper (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect if you removed the images it would not need to be moved. They do not add any value and are just for decoration and they bloat the table. Images are better either in commons, the related article or in around the main text. MilborneOne (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Against there's not really that much info, well at least not enough to make a full article. But I do really like the photo thumbnails. I see it as less clutter than having giant thumbnails on the side. NagamasaAzai (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Public or Private?

[edit]

Hello, I know this is random, but I am currently doing business studies and Air Canada is one of them I am researching on. However, I was researching to see if it is public or privatly owned, but could not see this anywhere. Can someone tell me if Air Canada is public or private? Because it will help my studies, thank you. (TheGreenwalker (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

AC is publicly traded by ACE Aviation Holdings. Hope that helps. Casual T .30-06 (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air Canada is its own publicly traded company. ACE only has an 11% stake in Air Canada.--Svgalbertian (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accidents and Incidents

[edit]

Should the table of accidents and incidents really include Trans-Canada airlines accidents? There is a seperate article for TCA.Casual T .30-06 (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The table is for Accidents and Incidents, including alleged terrorist threats falls outside its remit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.152.99 (talk) 07:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Porter CEO sues Air Canada

[edit]

Apparently when he sold Air Ontario to Air Canada he was promised a free lifetime travel pass for him and his wife. Air Canada cancelled it without notice. Air Canada has been in a court battle with Porter airlines over slots at the Toronto Island Airport. Seems kind of a slimey way to do business. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/100720/canada/canada_us_porterairlines —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.74.196 (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parent Company

[edit]

Can 'ACE Aviation Holdings' still be considered Air Canada's parent company? Air Canada now trades independently on the TSX as AC. ACE has slowly been selling off their shares and now only has a 11% interest in Air Canada.--Svgalbertian (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strikes and Labour disputes

[edit]

Shouldn't there be a section about Air Canada's many strikes, potential strikes and labour disputes? This often, especially in the last year, affects travel and travel planning with this company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.77.217.195 (talk) 07:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Over the 70 year history of an airline like Air Canada most strikes, potential strikes and labour disputes are not really notable in the big scheme of things. MilborneOne (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2011 (UTAir Canada and the Government of Canada must be setting a precedent

This should be reevaluated since Air Canada and the Government of Canada must be setting a precedent with consistent violations of worker's rights with basically all of their employees. There has since been considerable delays and inconvenience to customers. McMundy (talk) 06:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In 2011 and 2012 the Conservative Government of Canada introduced legislation that prevented the 4 major unionized groups of Air Canada, The pilots ACPA, Flight Attendants CUPE, Gate Agents CAW, and Maintenance and Baggage Services IAM&AW from exercising their right to strike. The legislation included outrageously heavy monetary fines against any union or its leadership.Midnightvisions (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note the Government of British Columbia also used this same legislation tactic to stop the 2012 teachers strike which was happening at the same time.Midnightvisions (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is this relevant to the Air Canada article? The legislation is for the unions, not specifically for Air Canada. Canterbury Tail talk 20:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Financial results

[edit]

Where are the financials listed in this article coming from. Net income for FYE Dec 2011 was -C$249m and assets were C$9,633. These are wildly different than what is in the article. Am I missing something?

2011 SEDAR AR: http://www.aircanada.com/en/about/investor/documents/2011_ar.pdf?d=041112

Rogue

[edit]

I am going to add a new section on Rogue, the new carrier which will launch pending government approval. It will be short and sweet for now. Though I have no objection to it being broken off into a stub. I am going to redirect Rouge (Airline) to Air Canada - as the company/division expands, adds destinations, and builds a fleet we will probably want to use that title. Meanie (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NM its been done. Thats plenty for now. As more details emerge we should add.Meanie (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

London Heathrow as a focus city

[edit]

There has been a dispute on the London Heathrow Airport page's infobox where users continue to remove Air Canada for the "Focus City for" parameter. Can anyone explain how Heathrow can be a focus city and provide reliable sources stating Air Canada calling Heathrow a focus city. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, doesn't seem to fit the definition of a focus city at all. I suggest it's removed from this and the Heathrow articles. SempreVolando (talk) 02:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biased opinion on Skytrax Award?

[edit]

The airline winning the SkyTrax award as being 4-Star is an achievement for the airline and a fact. Although some people might not agree with it, the additional post in the about section is more of a biased opinion. Anyone can quote the SkyTrax website (www.airlinequality.com) and state 'many' question the award. Basically anyone can add this kind of statement to another airline's wikipedia page.

From the main Air Canada page, I quote (last paragraph): " Air Canada is presently recognized as the Skytrax Best International Airline in North America, as well as being ranked as a 4 Star Airline by Skytrax in 2013. This rating has been called into question by the consistently negative passenger trip reviews posted on Skytrax which focus usually upon discussions of the discomfort of the new high density 777 aircraft, poor gate and flight attendant service, poor food on international flights compared to other four star competitors, Air Canada Rouge's poor passenger experience which is often substituted for mainline Air Canada service, and poor condition of their A320 family aircraft. These comments indicate that the four star rating should be taken with a grain of salt."

Can someone tell me how this is helpful in learning about the airline? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadianfamikey (talk • contribs) 23:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't helpful: it sounds like someone ranting, and certainly contravenes the neutral point of view policy. I've removed it. --RFBailey (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note the airline project viewpoint (if I remember) is that we dont mention Skytrax in airline articles as it is an opinion site it is more travel guide than encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Embraer 190

[edit]

Based on the article, it is to be retired. Anyone can add a reference or I'll delete it in 1-2 weeks. Thanks.Maodi xn (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Company Slogan

[edit]

I believe the new company slogan is "Your World Awaits". It needs to be updated in the article. Thanks. http://www.aircanada.com/en/yourworldawaits/index.html?icid=br%7Cfurl%7Cywa%7Ccaen%7C140520%7Ctxt FlyAirCanada (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incident, 29 March 2015

[edit]

Flight 624 departed the runway and hit a pylon on landing today. Might be worth keeping an eye on the story, unclear at the moment how serious the incident is. Mjroots (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Air Canada. 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.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 23:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

accidents and incidents sub-article?

[edit]

Is there violent opposition to keep crashes in this article but have a sub-article for all accidents and selected incidents? This would allow more detail into the incidents. For example, in 2011, an Air Canada co-pilot thought the plane was about to collide with another plane and he brought the plane to a nose dive injuring passengers. He actually saw the planet Venus, which he mistook for an imminent mid-air collision. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/tired-pilot-caused-air-canada-mid-flight-dive-1.1139316 Several reliable sources exists showing this happened, therefore is Wikipedia notable, but I am not suggesting an article just on this incident but an article on all Air Canada incidents.

In short, keep the accidents here. Create an Accidents/Incidents sub-article. Whiskeymouth (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more normal to move all the accidents and incidents to a sub-article, although it gives more scope to expand it should not be used to add non-notable incidents and the like, I would consider your example to not be particularly notable and should not be included. MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Air Canada. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Air Canada. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Air Canada Jetz

[edit]

Why does the Air Canada fleet page include 3 a319 aircraft from Air Canada Jetz? Air Canada Jetz has it's own wiki page with it's own fleet total. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.81.122.213 (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Air Canada. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

# Destinations?

[edit]

The first paragraph says 207, infobox says 102? Can someone correct it please? --Aliwal2012 (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

max 8

[edit]

Hello

With everything that has happened about the max 8, does this mean that deliveries will be paused and replacement of the a320 with max 8 will be put on hold until the max 8 is reinstated? Several airlines hav eeither canceled or put on hold their max 8s. 38.111.120.74 (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the [

"Dangerous hard landing"

[edit]

The accidents and incidents section has a line item recently added regarding a hard landing on Nov 13 2023. It references a CTV article which in turn references a passenger YouTube video, but a) the wording "dangerous" is not itself referenced and seems to be OR, and b) it's not clear to me a hard landing due to crosswinds, with no injuries and no damage, is notable enough to include. That said, I'm not clear on what are reasonable criteria for inclusion/exclusion. Comments, anyone? Martinp (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for inclusion/exclusion are found at WP:AIRCRASH:
Accidents or incidents at the airport should only be included in airline and airport articles if:
  • The accident was fatal to humans; or
  • The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport; or
  • The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry.
Unless this hard landing led to changes to procedures, regulations or processes, it's probably not notable enough for inclusion. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, and confirms my intuitive understanding. I will remove it now, with no objections to it being reinstated if consensus develops here, or a policy-based argument we are missing can be provided. Not trying to censor, just avoiding undue weight on recent, not very notable news. Martinp (talk) 02:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merger with "Trans-Canada Airlines"

[edit]

I have introduced a discussion about merging this article with "Trans-Canada Air Lines" on that talk page. Talk:Trans-Canada Air Lines#Merging Benboy250 (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Air Canada’s Winnipeg Base

[edit]

Air Canada has four main operating bases, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Winnipeg. I corrected it on the page and it got changed back. The page as now is incorrect. 104.129.112.182 (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Air_Canada&oldid=1236510939"