Jump to content

Talk:Air India/Archive 1

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

old comments

Can we please check the grammar of the article? Many parts of it are extremely weak, especially the part discussing renovations to the airline post-merge with Indian Airlines.

Thanks! ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.196.214 (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Merger and Splitting the article

I do not understand why the article has been split. The Indian Airlines brand name is non existent. This can be seen at any Indian Airport, when they are called at their call centre etc. It is just that the website integration is incomplete, which will be completed (hopefully) by March 2008. Though the flight numbers have IC written, they have an AI codeshare (just add 9 before the 1st digit). Since the slots are very old, I doubt if the flight numbers will change. But that doesn't make one a subsidary of the other. Air India Express, AI Regional etc. are the subsidaries, not Indian Airlines. The schemes are integrated and marketing, ground handling etc. are being integrated. Therefore I feel that there is no reason for the article to be split. Thanks for any comments. - 4:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

1) The integration process, especially fleet integration, is not complete. So, cannot list Indian Airlines fleet in Air India article for now. When the integration process is completely over, necessary changes to both articles will be made.
2) Indian Airlines will continue to have its own article nevertheless because sections on its history and past operations needs to be covered. --Emperor Genius (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
) Fleet integration has taken place - Flight AI 746, AI747 (Dubai to Delhi and return) operates using an A320 aircraft; AI 111, AI 112 (Amritsar - Delhi - London - New York and return) operates the Amristar - Delhi leg using an A320 aircraft; 1 of the Hyderabad - Mumbai flights (IC, A320)arrives at the int'l terminal to connect to AI 141/2 to/from New York; the A330 were leased by IC when it was independent and were operated at one point of time using both AI and IC numbers on different flights etc. - the list is long. Therefore, the fleet needs to be a combined fleet. Thanks - Chattasingh 1329, 15 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chattasingh (talk • contribs)
I disagree. A couple of swaps here and there don't really make it an integrated airline. It will (hopefully) happen - but it's far from reality at this point. AI still largely operates using its own 310/747/777 fleet (with the exception of a couple of 320s 'borrowed' from IC). And they continue to function almost as separate airlines - from staff, to airport terminals, to websites.
Also, if the AI article is updated, then so should be the IC article. Or maybe create a new page and link to there?
Besides, the information in that old table is just simply wrong: neither AI nor IC fly to Switzerland, I doubt KUL has seen the 747 in a long time, etc. Jasepl (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
But as an encyclopedia wikipedia has to show the whole fleet information. Even if a few aircraft are "borrowed", it must be shown. They can't be called as "borrowed" because the same aircrafts operate flights as both AI and IC. A subsidiary's operations are supposed to be independent of its parent company's, but since the same aircraft operates for both, there is no subsidiary. Integration on ground has taken place at many airports, especially at secondary cities like Lucknow. Senior cooperate management team, the marketing team, the schemes given, connections given, etc are same. Former Indian Airlines staff does operate on many AI numbered flights. Route rationalization has also taken place - for example AI numbered flights have stopped operating to Bangkok, IC numbered flights to Singapore from Delhi have been stopped, AI numbered flights to Kuala Lampur have been stopped etc. It is just that the web integration has not taken place. Even "some" integration IS integration (I feel that a lot other than website has been done, I can't say anything about the website because GOI always has poor quality websites), so the article cannot be divided. About the table being incorrect, that can be updated at any time and has no relevance to the issue being discussed. There can be a separate article for IC, but it must be shown as a dysfunctional airline which covers its independent history etc just as wikipedia has different articles for Swissair and Swiss International Airlines, where Swissair is shown as a dysfunctional airline which was merged with Lufthansa. - 17:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.130.219 (talk)
Yes, of course, Lucknow. That great centre of aviation in India!
I still disagree, and don't believe your interpretation to be valid, but, that said, have it your way. However you do it though, the fleet list in either the AI article or the IC article will be incorrect. So maybe you might want to create a separate article showing the combined fleet? Which is something I suggested all along (see above).
Oh, and try to ensure the changes you make at least display the truth. I mean Calcutta (yes, that other great centre of aviation) as a focus city for Air India? Hahahah! Jasepl (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Calcutta has around 20 times the number of AI/IC flights which the destinations you have listed have, and has amongst the highest passenger traffic in the country. There is actually no need for a separate article for Indian Airlines, it should be merged into the Air India article. If a separate article for Indian Airlines is needed to show its independent history (which can also be shown as a separate section in this article), it should show it as a dysfunctional airline, and therefore does not need to be updated at all. There should be a combined article under the name Air India representing AI and IC because the two have been merged. The fleet, management, ground handling etc is the same. So why should the two be kept as independent articles? And as this article uses the name Air India, which is the name for the merged airline, this should show information on both articles. Lucknow was just an example of any ordinary city. Travel on IC and see for your self. The boarding passes have "Air India" written, the plates have "Air India" written, the newer aircraft have "Air India" painted on them, at the end of the flight the announcement made is "Thank you for flying with Air India" etc. An encyclopedia must have up to date info and not separate articles for the same entity. Chattasingh (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Chatta Singh, firstly, apart from couple of flights, flight integration has not taken place. In fact AI's integration into Star Alliance has delayed because of this. Secondly, if you want to make changes to the article and include Indian Airlines info in this article, please do so without reverting other edits done to the article. You have re-added unnecessary sub-sections, added bold to text which does not refer to the subject and removed "Future challenges" section in your attempt to add info about Indian Airlines. Please go through Wikipedia:Editing policy. Thanks --Emperor Genius (talk) 03:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Indian Airlines info has been readded, without editing other sections. A lot of flightintegration has taken place, and only the website integration has not been started. Integration takes time but as the two have been merged, so should be the info. 12:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.189.155 (talk)
They have NOT merged. The process has started, yes. A few things have been done, certainly. But there is NO merger so far.
In legal terms, Air India Limited remains a separate company from Indian Airlines Limited. One is based in Bombay, the other in Delhi. What they do have in common is that they are both part of NACIL. That's all. Anything IC does on behalf of AI has to be recorded as a third-party transaction in AI's books.
In aviation terms, their Callsigns are different. Their IATA designators remain independent. Their ICAO codes are different. The operate under independent certificates and licenses.
In English, that means they are SEPARATE, INDEPENDENT airlines (that cooperate with each other).
Either way, Calcutta is NOT a focus city for Air India. In fact, AI has constantly been criticised for ignoring Calcutta.
Jasepl (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, one cannot just change the information for the current fleet in the AI article and leave everything else the same. If, as you claim, AI's fleet = IC's fleet, then the fleet section in the IC article should be identical.
And then what about the historical fleet?
What, also, about orders? Why only include the 777s that Air India ordered? What about IC's orders?
They HAVE merged. There is no separate Air India Ltd and Indian Airlines Ltd. It is NACIL. The two operate using the same aircraft, flight equipment, ground handling, management, marketing etc. They are NOT recorded as a 3rd party transaction in anyone's books, they are the same entity.
The fleet is the same. There is NO separate Indian Airlines and therefore there is no need for a separate article for it. All the info should be there in ONE article. If all newer aircraft are painted in AI colors (including A32x family), the catering, ground handling, management is the same, then how can you call the two separate? Please stop vandalizing the article.
Chattasingh (talk) 6:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
They have merged to one entity now so there is NO Indian Airlines Ltd. Even there website redirects to AirIndia website. KuwarOnline (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the history of the old centaur logo, and the reason for its adoption?

Also, the description of the new livery is hard to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.89.68.24 (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

NEW LOGO OF AIR INDIA & INDIAN AIRLINES

Can we please get the new logo of Air India and Indian Airlines up and on the page. Thank You! Sunny Gill265 23:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Merger the Air India and Indian Airlines pages together

I think we should merger the two pages together becuase the real merger between Air India and Indian Airlines completing on July 15 2007. We will have to merger the pages anyways since there will be nomore of Indian Airlines after July 17 2007. Please do consider this since it will happen sooner then later.Sunny Gill265 22:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Totally can not agree with that. Both airlines have long and independent histories and they should be treated as such until such time as the merger occurs, at which time the 'future' is dealt with in one article. --Russavia 06:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should let INDIAN AIRLINES stay as it is, after all wiki pedia covers complete details about subject & HIJACK OF IC814 & other accidents were a part of INDIAN AIRLINES.also, this airline has been carrying legacy since decades of helping indians stranded anywhere in the worlds & also domestic passengers. Only airline to permit Strechers for ill passengers in INDIA...after this i dont think INDIAN AIRLINES SHOULD BE REMOVED

FAC

I snipped the {{fac}} notice from the main article. Please see Wikipedia:Avoid self-references for the rationale.

chocolateboy 13:25, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It says using templates is ok. Correct me if I am wrong --ganesh 15:41, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi, ganesh.

There's no guarantee that a fork will (or, for that matter, should) automatically work around all template issues, which is why recent changes have endeavoured to make templates as generic as possible (e.g. "Spoilers follow" rather than "Wikipedia contains spoilers").

I removed the notice as it contravenes:

  • the recommendation given on the Featured article candidates page: ... you may want to place a notice on its talk page to alert readers by adding the message {{fac}}.
  • the de facto Wikipedia standard observed by every other featured article candidate [1]

I agree that there's some wiggle-room for clarification of the current policy or even its full-blown deposal, but I would suggest that the Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates page would be a better forum in which to lobby for those changes. That way, more people could contribute, which, in turn, would give more weight to any emerging consensus.

See also Wikipedia_talk:Featured articles#distinguishing these articles further, Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive1#Boilerplate and Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive1#Brilliant prose for more background.

chocolateboy 16:50, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Featured Article candidacy comments (was not promoted)

(Contested -- July 3) Air India

Self-nomination. I have tried my best to bring to surface this wonderful airline which is often overlooked by many. The article existed before my revision. I have tried my best in organising the article to appropriate standards. The factual figures represented in the article have backing which can be easily verified either on the internet or on the printed literature. Drbalaji md

  • Support: I think this article deserves to be featured. I appreciate the prompt modifications of the content by the author Drbalaji_md, based on the suggestions made. I do not find any other airline's page that is as readable and well presented as this one. I must also appreciate the author for high-lighting the role of women pilots, so scarcely represented in the world media. The airline's unique cuisine deserves recognition too.--ganesh 02:30, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object:
    • The Tragedies-section is literally copied from a website, which is even mentioned in the article with copyright. This is very obvious copyright violation. I'm consid
      • Thanks. I will take necessary action
    • One of the three logo/mascot images has no source, and the others come from the company's website, where there are no indications these pictures may be used. Perhaps they fall under fair use, but then the images should note this.
      • I thought this is quite obvious.
        • Even if it is obvious, it should be noted. Jeronimo 07:43, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The article looks a bit messy. F.e., both Bombay and Mumbai are used in the article; this is the same city.
      • messy? I do not think so. Bombay and Mumbai are two names for the same city and they are widely in use throughout India. Anyway, the official name for Bombay now is Mumbai. I will change it.
    • Is this nomation so important that it has to be mentioned in the lead section?
      • Yes it is. I hate to say but this POV of yours is scornable! An honest effort to contribute to a world encyclopedia should never be under estimated. By this same measure, I can call every one of your contribution as 'unimportant'!
        • I was unclear here: I was referring to the OAS nomination, which is in the first sentence. This indicates this nomination is - for some reason - very important, but I don't see the importance. There wasn't even a prize. This should be moved to the "Awards and recognition" section, or it should be made more clear why this fact is mentioned in the very first sentence. Jeronimo 07:43, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Much of this article reads like a company advertisement to invest. It's nice to read passenger figures and revenues for last year, but an encyclopedia article should either not include those, or give a historical overview of such figures.
      • Again. Your POVs are pointless. Encyclopedia represents facts. And that is what is represented there. Which fact should be included and which should not - kindly enlighten me, the intelligent one. --Drbalaji md 21:53, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • If you're not willing to listen to reasonable objections, please say so, otherwise please stop patronizing me. Encyclopedia's represent facts yes. But they should be in context, and complete. So we should not only give last year's figures, but also from other years. Maybe just a few years, but a graph would be fantastic (but not required). This will give a picture of how the company has developed over the years. Also some numbers that place this into context would be nice. How does this airline do in comparison with other major airlines? And compared to other Indian airliners. Jeronimo 07:43, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Jeronimo 08:02, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Object. Not very well written or laid out. Seems incomplete (the tragedies section at least is missing information -- the so-called Air India Trial is ongoing). Exploding Boy 07:20, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
      • A vague and useless commentary. --Drbalaji md 21:53, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Object : A number of facts in the article are INCORRECT and appear to be lifted directly from Air India's own website (which is also inaccurate on some issues and outdated on others such as the current fleet). Citing questionable subjective sources such as Skytrax immediately erodes the article's credibility. The article also has very poor structure and composition and is weak on actual data. It would be far more appropriate to cover actual services and history of the airline rather than inconsequential propoganda about Inflight Duty Free Sales and obscure awards from 1994. While you have undoubtedly put a lot of effort into this piece, the end result is very poor and needs a lot of work before it should be considered for a featured article.
      • It would be nice if the writer of the above prose who has taken so much effort to produce a poor end result :), kindly shows up his signature. INCORRECT in bold does not make correct things incorrect - neither it is considered etiquette. Obscure awards? Is the Guinness book obscure? I suggest you research as much as I did and substantiate your INCORRECT statement's credibility :) Skytrax is a renowned internet review magazine. Kindly review their site (link is in Air India article). We are not organising a flight schedule service for the airline - I thought keeping dumb links for all the places the airline goes is equally dumb :) There is a substantial amount of information regarding the history of the airline. But, history alone is not encyclopedia. By the way, all the above reviews helped me to edit Air India so that it represents facts. I do not need to invite anyone to change the content Air India - it is an open article in a open domain. You are free to do whatever you want. I like the quote "It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness!" --Drbalaji md 22:50, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • I do not think there is a better source of information for Air India than its own official website. Are all articles written only by the people who possess the original sources? Are the featured articles not written by assembling facts taken from the websites? --ganesh 02:30, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • It should of course be one of the sources, but you should keep in mind that it is a company's website. Issues that are "bad" for the company may not be discussed NPOV, such as for example the accidents an airliner has had. Jeronimo 07:48, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Merger with Jat?

This may seem farfetched and not true, but reports coming from a few websites like airliners.net and others say that on Serbian News Channel BETA, the media stated that Air India wanted to merge with Jat Airways. I myself am not sure if I believe this, and so far it is only rumors and no major media site or company has confirmed this in my knowledge. Anyone with info or opinions about this rumor are welcome to reply. Zastavafan76 23:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia THIS REPORT IS FALSE & AIR INDIA HAS MERGED WITH INDIAN AIRLINES, NEW COMPANY WOULD BE FLOATED ON JULY 18, 2007..thanks(rajeshkotwani)

References?

Could we have them please? Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:00, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism

Some Pakistani guy completely vandalized Air India's main template on the top right hand corner. I will rechange it back to what it originally was, but this is very disappointing. The person who did this has not even registered for a Username, but his IP is 69.175.205.67, looking at his other contributions, I have deduced that he was Pakistani. he has absolutely no right to show his pakistani nationalism here by degrading this high quality page...

Bmaganti 04:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Missing Incident

This hijacking incident [2] seems to be missing here (as well as in Aircraft hijacking). AI Flight 224, from Harare to Bombay, was hijacked when it stopped for refuelling at Mahe and was taken to Durban. I am building the list of references to go with it, but if anyone has those already, please update the article.

Fleet Age

Can someone please post some information about the fleet age of Air India. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.42.21.150 (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Punjabi?

Any reason why the Punjabi spelling of Air India is also listed at the top of the page? All of the official documents list it only in Hindi and English. Unless the spelling was listed in other regional languages as well, it would be in my opinion that it should be removed.

Bmaganti 16:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Smoking

I believe this is one of the few airlines to still have a smoking section-on domestic flights only. John celona 13:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Airindia.mascot.maharaja.gif

Image:Airindia.mascot.maharaja.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Missing Crash

As far as I remember there ws an Air India crash on the Alps, wreckage of which was discovered only a few years ago as the snow had receded. I beleive the flight went down in 1960s. COuld someone confirm that and provide information for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.130.173.38 (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

.

Air India Regional

A new article should be created for Air India Regional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.42.97 (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Fleet Details

Air India does not have any outstanding orders for their long haul fleet outside the current orders of the Boeing 777 and 787. The Airbus ones have been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.187.150 (talk) 10:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fleet Size?

What is the current and expected fleet size of AI?? It seems to have been changed from 229 to 185 by 203.115.93.217 on 19 Apr 2008. Should the AI Express fleet be added to this ... considering that its fully owned by AI? + if not already done, should the Indian Airlines aka Indian fleet also be added to this ... reflecting the merger? Someone with the required knowledge on this please clarify and edit!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.155.37 (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC) You people should add what Air India is made of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.131.39 (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

fleet

Where did the A330-200 suddenly disappear? and where did the 767-300ER come from? It's already been returned to Flyglobespan. And what happened to the A320 familt? (all the new ones are painted in AI livery)

someone seriously needs to fix up the fleet section of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.94.171 (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Even I agree that the article needs to be fixed, but a few users keep reverting all changes made to the fleet to separate AI and IC fleet, even though they are the same. Pls refer to the talk at the top of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chattasingh (talk • contribs) 06:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I've temporarily protected this article until the disputes surrounding it are sorted out. Please discuss your grievances below and we'll work towards something that's satisfactory to everybody. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is being disputed here? If both sides could give a short description of their argument that would be helpful as the edit comments haven't been proving very useful. As a base, the only destination and fleet information that should be listed in this article should pertain to Air India. Subsidiary information does not belong on this page. NcSchu(Talk) 20:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Points of contention appear to include whether AI services Zürich and the status of the merger between AI and Indian Airlines; but I'll let the disputing parties clarify. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No one's denying that a merger was announced over a year ago. However, it hasn't happened yet - simple as that. A merger of AI-IC-IX-CD is far from reality at this point in time. So until it is effected, IMO the articles should stick to Air India, and everything related to subsidiaries should remain on the sub's page. They regularly announce delays in the merger anyway.
As it is, the current structure is that NACIL owns both Air India and Indian Airlines. Air India in turn owns Air India Express and Indian Airlines owns Air India Regional. Air India and Indian Airlines remain legally distinct entities, only having a common parent. At one point, Ford Motors owned both Mazda and Aston Martin. Can it then be claimed that Mazda and Aston Martin were the same company? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.177.59 (talk) 06:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
As for Zurich, it was always an on-again/off-again destination, and AI last flew there in 1997. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.177.59 (talk) 06:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


The statement on Air India homepage (http://home.airindia.in/SBCMS/AIHome.aspx) says different. If you have current references that suggest otherwise please let us know. I agree with the Zurich comment though. Also, in my opinion (if what is said on the AI homepage is true) then:

  • AI and IC should still maintain separate pages since a joint page of both these carriers (with subsidiaries) would become very long and quite dreary.
  • Both AI and IC pages should unambiguously show that they are now part of the same entity.
  • AI fleet = 149 (+69 orders) and desti = 97. Both numbers incl. subsidiaries
  • NACIL page should be updated with the current status of the merger.

~24.20 9.212

It seems to me that it really needs to be one or the other; if we're presenting AI and IC as separate entities/brands (which it looks like they still are right now) with two separate articles, then the fleet sizes and destinations should also remain distinct from one another. When/if IC ceases to be presented as a separate brand, it will be time to roll the two articles into one and combine the fleets and destinations. --Rlandmann (talk) 06:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


That link just takes you to the NACIL page, after which you still need to pick either AI or IC. And when you do, you end up looking at the samd old outdated and incorrect information that always existed before a bit of lipstick was slapped on that pig.

As I (and a couple of others said above):

  • AI still largely operates using its own 310/747/777 fleet (with the exception of a couple of aircraft 'borrowed' from IC). And they continue to function almost as separate airlines - from staff, to airport terminals, to cabin crew, to websites.
  • Integration has not taken place. In fact AI's integration into Star Alliance has delayed because of this,
  • In legal terms, Air India Limited remains a separate company from Indian Airlines Limited. One is based in Bombay, the other in Delhi. What they do have in common is that they are both part of NACIL. That's all. Anything IC does on behalf of AI is still recorded as a third-party transaction in AI's books.
  • Their callsigns are different. Their IATA designators remain independent. Their ICAO codes are different. They operate under independent certificates and licenses. Ergo, they remain different airlines, regardless of what AI or IC or the Government or whoever might claim.

I agree that at this point in time, it does need to be one or the other. The most logical approach would be to keep this article Air India specific, including fleet details, and mention that the merger process has started. Once it is complete (and let's not hold our breaths on this one), the two articles can be rolled into one.

Jasepl (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


You (Jasepl) may be correct but I still dont see any reference/news article, etc. to support this claim. Do clarify. ~24.20 9.212 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20 9.212 (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that we need references to back up some of the claims above; however, since these articles reflect a status quo known to exist in the past, the onus is really on those who wish to merge the fleet sizes and destinations to demonstrate that the merger has now been effected at anything other than a "holding company" level. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Evidence for claims above?

Let's see if we can reference these claims (and, for the moment, we'll put aside the question of whether any/all of these are relevant indicators of the status of the merger):

  • AI still largely operates using its own 310/747/777 fleet (with the exception of a couple of aircraft 'borrowed' from IC).
  • staff, to
  • airport terminals, to
  • cabin crew, to
  • websites.
  • AI's integration into Star Alliance has delayed because of this
  • In legal terms, Air India Limited remains a separate company from Indian Airlines Limited. One is based in Bombay, the other in Delhi.
  • Anything IC does on behalf of AI is still recorded as a third-party transaction in AI's books.
  • Their callsigns are different
  • Their IATA designators remain independent.
    • True in 2006 - any evidence that this has changed?
    • True on 21-Oct-2008, (as far as being reflected in flight numbers, anyway) [5]
  • Their ICAO codes are different.
  • They operate under independent certificates and licenses.
  • Flight Numbers


I (rather reluctantly) agree with the above. Even though preliminary merger actions were initiated in Aug,2007 resulting in cosmetic changes [6], a more thorough search shows that the merger was then mired in litigation and controversy [7]. Hence, not withstanding the outdated optimistic reports stating otherwise [8], the latest reliable bit of news that I could find puts the final/complete merger a good 2 years away [9] in 2010. Effectively the only subsidiaries that Air India seems to have at this point of time (Oct, 2008) are the Air India Express and the Air India Cargo arms while Alliance Air (a.k.a. Air India Regional) remains a subsidiary of the Indian (a.k.a. Indian Airlines). ~24.20.9.212 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.9.212 (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As for the actual fleet sizes, [10] shows the Air India fleet (w/o IC) to be 107 and [11] [12] show that it has ordered 68 aircrafts as of June 15, 2007. ~24.20.9.212 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.9.212 (talk) 06:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that airfleets.net doesn't appear to qualify as a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


fleet size

I'm changing it to the # on the official site - http://home.airindia.in/SBCMS/Webpages/Fleet-Details1.aspx?MID=196 Corpx (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of galleries

During last week few attempts had been made to remove Gallery of Tata Airlines timetable covers, reason given behind this was galleries are not encyclopedic and Galleries are for wikicommons. They are not encyclopedic.

Notabley there is one more gallery present on the article i.e. Gallery of superseded liveries which was never altered.

If there is any logic and rationale (I couldn't find any in Gallery template page, help page, etc.) behind removal of the said gallery both galleries should be removed. On the contrary featured article like Flag of Belarus, Flag of Canada, Postage stamps of Ireland, etc contain Gallery (which means Galleries are accepted even in Featured Articles not to say about unfeatured ones).

Please, discuss this issue here on talk page before removal of any Gallery.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You may be new to Wiki, but if you look at all featured articles, you will NOT find galleries. There is a reason for this. Wikicommons is for galleries. This is an encyclopedia. There is no need to have a gallery unless you are describing somthing that can't be described with just words.
Flag of Belraus can not be described in just words, which is why it makes sense to have a gallery. Postage stamps of ireland also describes an image that cant be well described in words. AIR INDIA is NOT an image and a gallery does not help explain the airline.
If you want to add this gallery, you need to get consensus because for the 2 years which i have been on Wiki, that article has not had a gallery. Please gain consensus before readding. Thanks.
Nikkul (talk) 08:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
P.S. If you want a gallery, I suggest you start another page called Images of Tata Airlines timetable covers
Also, Tata Airlines Timetable Covers have nothing to do with Air India today. It's ridiculious to have so many images of something that doesnt relate to Air India Today! Nikkul (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I've been editing wikipedia for two & a half years so I'm not that new. You are right that all FA do not have galleries(although few have) but that does not mean that articles can't have galleries. There is no Wiki policy/guideline prohibiting gallery on an article. Tata Airlines is pre-cursor of Air India and these Covers depict change in presentation & marketing; if you can describe this in words you are free to remove gallery. This gallery has been on this article for around Four months & no one seems to have problem with it only you have. As this gallery has been there for four months(during which there were several edits & revamp og this article) its better that you get consensus for removing it. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 08:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is not about the change in marketing of Tata Airlines! There is NO NEED for this gallery to be there. This gallery has not been on this page for the past SEVEN years. Please gain consensus before adding. Nikkul (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This article didn't had many things in past seven years e.g. it did'nt had Tata Air Services images also; if this is the standard then whole wikipedia will have to be cleared. Please gain consensus before removing. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the Gallery of Tata Airlines timetable covers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India#Gallery_of_Tata_Airlines_timetable_covers) are already on the Tata Airlines Article ,i think so it should be removed except for the Air India timetable 14 June 1947 as its related to Air India whereas rest all are related to Tata Airlines.
As for the Gallery of superseded liveries it should be placed in the Livery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India#Livery) section of the article as it makes more sense placing it there (Druid.raul (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

Have to support the removal of the timetables that are in the Tata Airlines article, although I note the comment that this article is about Air India today - it is not, it is an encyclopedia article about Air India since formation so anything historical and referenced is OK but the early history is covered by a different article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Milborne, I totally agree. Of course the history is relevant, but at the same time having 20 images of Tata Airline's marketing strategy is totally irrelevant to Air India!
Regarding the livery gallery, I have taken Druid.raul's suggestion and I have integrated the former livery image into the history section, so there is no need to have a supserceded livery gallery.
Regarding the Tata Airlines Timetables Gallery, I will again mention that it is totally unnecessary to have this gallery! Nikkul (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
There were 10 images of Tata Airline & '1' of Air India timetable; I also note that this gallery is present on Gallery of Tata Airlines timetable covers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India#Gallery_of_Tata_Airlines_timetable_covers) on the Tata Airlines Article (I myself placed it but some how missed it Sorry) but Air India timetable still is quite relevany to this article as it is not being covered elsewhere. We should keep this image (in future there may be similar additions to it). One more thing I think User talk:Nikkul is in too hurry to re-shape the article, as per ethics one should refrain from editing/reshaping portion/section of article being discussed until some consensus/conclusion is reached.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi (talk) 06:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit unsure of why I was contacted regarding this as I haven't really been active on this page for more than a week, but as per WP:NOT images included in articles are supposed to have encyclopedic context. Mere collections of pictures, while present on some articles, are not recommended unless there is significant information to give them context. Merely including them for the sake of including them is certainly not recommended, and yes, that is what Wikimedia Commons is for, and also why a link is provided to that page on the bottom of articles that do have many images associated with them. I feel like the timetable gallery has limited relevance on this article since timetable covers provide no encyclopedic value to readers and as far as I can think, would be hard to justify by text as well (unless the cover designs are somehow notable). There is a section on liveries and while it lacks history and probably could be written better, it does at least give a gallery of liveries more relevance than one of timetable covers. NcSchu(Talk) 14:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Airplane Identity

The article lists the name of the first 707 received by Air India as Nanda Devi (VT-DJJ) under the History section. Further down in the article, in the Accidents and Incidents section VT-DJJ is named Gauri Shankar.

Looking at pictures of VT-DJJ we see that it is in fact named Gauri Shankar.

If we assume that the Air India's first 707 was Nanda Devi, then the VT-DJJ designation in the History section is wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaukat Shakir (talk • contribs) 23:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

VT-DJJ changed name after an incident and was re-named Gauri Shankar, which was VT-DJI and VT-DJI became Nanadevi. MilborneOne (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Will Air india become India's largest airline after it is merged with Indian aIRLINES?

Will Air india become India's largest airline after it is merged with Indian aIRLINES? LeUrsidae96 (talk) 11:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents

The 11 April 1955 Kashmir Princess flight that was bombed in midair probably qualifies as a "terrorist attack," like the later Air India Flight 182 bombing. As such, I've changed the introductory to read "...including those due to terrorist attacks" from the original "...including one due to a terrorist attack." (Zengakuren (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC))

the speed of air india

i want the list of speeds of air india airlines —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.142.232 (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I presume you actually want the speed of the aircraft not the actual airline, these can be found by following the links to descriptions of each aircraft. Under aircraft in the fleet list just click on the blue link. MilborneOne (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Undiscussed Move

First an apology I moved the article back to Air India but had connection problems in the middle of the move but hope it is OK now. Move of an important article like this to another name really needs to be discussed here first. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

India Airlines to Air India

INDIAN and AIR INDIA have integrated. They are at the moment a different entity with the same brand name. BRAND name and LOGO`s have changed from Aircraft to Billi boards. So, Shall we have the same change on WIKI too ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandru9090 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that states that the integration is complete? Or that the markings on aircraft and billboards have changed? At the moment, airliners.net is showing photos dated as recently as last month of Indian Airlines aircraft flying in both the recent livery and the previous livery. --Rlandmann (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you have any reliable source to say the integration is not complete ?? or Do you have any source to tell that AIR INDIA (IC) is still being branded as " INDIAN AIRLINES " or " INDIAN ". I belong to Air India (IC) , although we work under two entity , we are branded under one name " AIR INDIA ".
Star Alliance has invited AIR INDIA for an alliance. Does that mean AIR INDIA (IC) , or the " INDIAN " as you call is not going to be part of it ?
Does INDIAN still market their products as INDIAN ?
See, you can call the airline AIR INDIA ( IC ) or AIR INDIA Domestic but definitely not INDIAN AIRLINES or INDIAN. Its no more INDIAN or INDIAN AIRLINES. Its AIR INDIA.
Chandru... 18:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Chandru9090
The most recent reliable sources that we have date from the time that the merger was announced. Until we have some evidence from a reliable source (for example, books, magazines, newspapers), we can't update the articles. I have no doubt that you're telling the truth, but Wikipedia operates on verifiability, not just truth. Can you cite books, magazines, or newspapers that verify that things have changed? Since you're the one who wants to change the articles, the onus is on you to provide the evidence. Hopefully, it won't be too hard to locate and we can bring these articles up to date! --Rlandmann (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
PS — to sign messages on talk pages, just type ~~~~ at the end of your message.
:: Here is the list of Indian Carriers on the MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION website http://civilaviation.nic.in/airlinelist.html. It does not show anything like INDIAN AIRLINES existing. Also check the DGCA website. The list of Scheduled operators does not show anything like INDIAN AIRLINES existing at the moment. Its only NACIL or AIR INDIA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandru9090 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Great — that certainly qualifies as a reliable source. That being the case, there's no need to move the articles anywhere. All we need to do is update the Indian Airlines article to say that the airline no longer exists as a separate entity and that it was merged into Air India. We have a large number of articles on airlines that don't exist any longer: there are several hundred listed under Category:Defunct_airlines_by_country. including nine other Indian airlines, one of which (Vayudoot) was actually absorbed into Indian Airlines. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
OK. I am updating " INDIAN Airlines " to be a under defunct airlines of INDIA and will say it was absorbed by AIR INDIA.

Ill also update " AIR INDIA " fleet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandru9090 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It would appear from the Indian Airlines website that it has not merged with Air India but is still operating seperately as Air India (IC) keeping its own IATA and ICAO code, still no reason to change the name of this article just needs a link at the top of the page. MilborneOne (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
MOCA or DGCA does not recognize INDIAN AIRLINES now. Only Air India is authorized and licensed to fly in INDIA not INDIAN AIRLINES or INDIAN. but still, Indian Airlines ICAO and IATA codes are now a part of NACIL which has merged the airline with AIR INDIA. Indian airlines website is no more a separate entity, it is a part of the AIR INDIA website. Check AIR INDIA website. Even re directions are given under the name of NACIL or AIR INDIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandru9090 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Please refer several of the discussions above; most of the findings are still valid, over a year later. To repeat:

  • AI still largely operates using its own 310/747/777 fleet. And they continue to function almost as separate airlines - from staff, to airport terminals, to cabin crew, to websites.
  • Integration has not taken place. In fact AI's integration into Star Alliance has been significantly delayed because of this,
  • In legal terms, Air India Limited remains a separate company from Indian Airlines Limited. One is based in Bombay, the other in Delhi. What they do have in common is that they are both owned by NACIL. That's all. Anything IC does on behalf of AI is still recorded as a third-party transaction in AI's books.
  • Their callsigns are different. Their IATA designators remain independent. Their ICAO codes are different. They operate under independent certificates and licenses. Ergo, they remain different airlines, regardless of what AI or IC or the Government or whoever might claim.

Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 08:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

WHY DID YOU HAVE TO PULL OUT ALL THE SERVICES GIVEN BY AIR INDIA, they are given by Boeing 777 and Boeing 747 aircrafts, which where already flying International ?? You just got very desperate to pull out anything that was edited and posted but a fact. Cool down and see what has been changed and edited before you do changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandru9090 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Jasepl, AI operates under one license not under two licenses. License issued to INDIAN AIRLINES has been revoked. How come do you say they are different airlines when Civil Aviation Authority of India does not recognize it and DGCA also does not recognize it ? Should we say an airline is operational only if it recognized by either of these authorities ?

  • And of your statement on "Ergo, they remain different airlines, regardless of what AI or IC or the Government or whoever might claim.", I am sorry,if you cant absorb the facts, you are just so egoistic that you would not want to digest the facts.
  • Let me make one thing clear to you, with kind information. Two IATA codes doesnot mean they have to be two different airlines, IATA codes can co exist after merger.
  • To your statement on " Integration has not taken place " , I am sorry, Integration has taken place but not completely, it is in the process.

Similarly did KF absorb Deccan but still the integration is not over at certain levels, that doesn`t mean Deccan exists.

  • Incorrect. For a while after Kingfisher bought Air Deccan, the two were listed as separate airlines, because, they were separate airlines. Once they started operating under a single certificate and merged their code (ie: DN was dropped in favour of IT across the network) is when they were listed as a single airlines. More recently, Delta bought Northwest and Northwest started flying several of Delta's routes, but both were listed as separate airlines until they obtained a single operating certificate. That is NOT the case with AI-IC-CD-IX. Not yet anyway. Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Conversely, Air France bought KLM, yet the two are listed as separate airlines, even though they now have common ownership, because they operate under separate certificated, using separate codes. Jasepl (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"* Until they obtained a single operating certificate" - Air India now has all of its fleet under one name and is operating in that name. AIR INDIA

  • Air France - KLM does not have a common ownership, the have companies have stake in each other and they have intended to operate as a seperate entity which is not the case with AIR INDIA.
  • And you didnt really seem to take other things in to consideration at all. ha ha..

If you dont want to realize the facts given by government authorities( owners of the company ), honorable minister of civil aviation, CMD of the company, DGCA ( Controlling authority in India ). I feel sorry WIKIPEDIA is giving wrong information's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandru9090 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Before you EDIT

If any body still believes the AI and IA are different. Do only edit Sections 1.5 and 4.1 of the article and any other minor changes that may be needed in the article as far as this subject is concerned. Please do not get desperate to revert sections like " SERVICES " and " Corporate IDENTITY " etc. Which is a part of the OLD unintegrated AI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandru9090 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your claims are incorrect, and your edits incompatible with basic inclusion requirements.

  • Statements such as: "Air India is a global airline and serves more than 70 destinations both in Domestic and International" are patently false
  • Listing all of the destinations in the main article is redundant, since there is a separate destinations article (as with all large airlines)
  • This is the Air India page, not the NACIL page. Therefore, the fleet table should list only aircraft registered to Air India Limited. Aircraft registrations are not noteworthy anyway.
  • The services section is a blatant copy-paste job (eg: "As your feet sink softly into the plush carpet" and "A haven for business & leisure travelers").
    • This is a copy-vio (expressly forbidden by Wikipedia policy and by law).
    • It is also a pure advertisement/promotion and point of view - and both of these are incompatible with Wikipedia inclusion guidelines.
  • Air India Regional is not an Air India subsidiary; it is owned by Indian Airlines.

To top it off, additions are not in Standard English (which is what the rest of the article uses) and grammar, spelling, punctuation and syntax are all seeking refugee status.
For these reasons (and more) I have had to revert your edits yet again. Please do not make any such further edits without consensus from other editors on the talk pages. Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

All changes you had said has been edited.

What now ?? No reasons, Just for fun.. Crap ! Are you an INDIAN ?? I am sure wikipedia is not. Now, I realize , i should not waste time on editing wikipedia articles.

Delhi as Primary Hub

Air India recently made Delhi as its Primary Hub. This is very much true because Delhi has more Air India Flights than Mumbai. The reason for doing this was that Mumbai is over saturated and over-crowded compared to Delhi. Each and every new aircraft lands at Delhi during its delivery flight. Paris and Tokyo now originate from Delhi and not from Mumbai. No new destinations are being launched from Mumbai compared to Delhi which has seen Washington,D.C. and Toronto flights. This is enough proof that Delhi is Air India's new Primary hub. [13] (Kshitij85 (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC))

Hi Kshitij85, the reference you given is says that "Soon, Delhi will be Maharaja’s new capital" which means it will be in future not current. Once you get good reference showing delhi is NOW primary hub then reverts my edits and if u still feels that your giving reference is correct then we will take this to admin KuwarOnline (talk) 07:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Today's accident

Per flightstats.com, I was able to deduce the ill-fated flight from Dubai to Mangalore was IX 812, scheduled to arrive at 6:30am local time. The website also shows the equipment to be 738, ie. a Boeing 737-800, which this Wiki page does not report Air India as having. Perhaps the AI Express equipment was on lease? Air India's own website is usually very buggy and is not at all helpful in determining the flight number or equipment. 137.54.68.72 (talk) 05:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Air_India/Archive_1&oldid=1136502615"