Talk:World's largest airlines/Archive 1

Archive 1

Data Units

What are the units for those tables? For example: "Scheduled passangers carried". Passengers carried during what period of time, day/month/year? The same goes for "passenger miles". Passenger miles per what? Day/month/year? It is a shame to provide those data without explanation of the units. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.43.48.130 (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Include Subsidiaries?

SkyWest Airlines, Inc. owns both SkyWest and ASA. AirFleets.net shows SkyWest with a fleet of 289 (293 by the SkyWest website) and 162 for ASA (160 by the ASA website). Should the fleet-size ranking reflect that? If it should, then several other airlines would need to be updated. Delta owns Mesaba and Compass, adding 102 and 36 planes to their fleet, respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.120.112 (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Do not include subsidiaries on this list, this list is for airlines...Not airline holding companies. Spikydan1 (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Germanwings?

Germanwings had 7,500,000 passengers last year according to their webpage, why are they not in the European ranking? (They don't seem to be subsumed with Lufthansa, because the 51M is Lufthansa group proper.)

Revenue rank?

Anybody care to put up some revenue rankings?--Jerryseinfeld 18:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

For the global rankings? Anyway....considering this list may keep growing, how about we branch it out to seperate lists as has been done for the corresponding airports pages?--Huaiwei 09:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

what about qantas?

I would have thought that qantas would get on this page, maybe we should start a pacific section?

Good idea, anyways these #s are waaaay off.

air canada has 336 aircraft not 329

in the list of no. of airplanes per airline, it says air canada has 329, but actually air canada has 336 aircraft.(check the air canada article for more clarification) Someone change it

So fix it. The button says edit this page. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No section title

These figures are way, way off. --Mets 05:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

International

Re [1] - User:Huaiwei prefers " flights within the People's Republic of China ", while I prefer " flights to mainland China ". While both are technically correct, the former is illogical in the sense that it's in effect even defining flights within Hong Kong (or within Macao) as international, which is ridiculous. — Instantnood 19:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hong Kong has one airport that serves airlines. Macau has one airport that serves airlines. Therefore, there are no flights WITHIN Hong Kong or Macau that are not to other international destinations. You have previously argued that things like helicopters or private aviation are exceptions. But, as this is a list of large airlines, it has nothing to do with helicopters and private aviation. Even in other cases, those exceptions to the general may be more accurate, but it is less useful to the reader of a general encyclopedia to worry about such minor exceptions. SchmuckyTheCat 19:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

There are airlines offering scheduled helicopter services, but that's not quite relevant to the discussion here, since only Cathay Pacific, Dragonair and Air Macau are on the list. Defining international by " all flights within the People's Republic of China " is illogical in the sense that it's defining flights within Hong Kong (or within Macao) as international. The key issue that has to be addressed in the footnote is that flights between Hong Kong and mainland China, or Macao and mainland China, are classified as international, despite within the same sovereign state. — Instantnood 20:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

And so flights between HK and Macau are domestic? Allow me to just remind, that the footnote was actually not meant to describe all possible scenarios, but all existing airline flights, considering they are footnotes of airline passenger figures currently available. To say there are XXX passengers from point A and B, and to have a footnote to XXX saying some of these passengers were treated as International despite flying within the same country makes perfect sense. We dont have to consider discussing the possibility of rockets zooming off from HK into outer space and slamming back into it later now or in the distant future, for that is obviously beyond its scope.--Huaiwei 03:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The footnote is intended for tell why flights within the same sovereign state could be international. Therefore it should tell what exactly is considered international. Flights between Hong Kong or Macao and mainland China, and flights between Hong Kong and Macao, are considered international. Flights within mainland China (or within Hong Kong, or within Macao) are not. In other words, flights within the PRC may or may not be international. — Instantnood 15:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who introduced the footnotes, and my intention is to provide footnotes for the statistics in question, and not a lengthy explaination on cross-border political situations. For the record, you chose to wikiwar with me even when the sentence reads Flights between the special administrative regions of Hong Kong, Macau and the rest of the People's Republic of China are classified as "International", which would have easily covered whatever you attempted to explain above, but of course you must amend it since a certain favourite keyphrase of yours is missing, I recon?--Huaiwei 17:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

" I was the one who introduced the footnotes, and my intention is to .. " - Nobody owns the footnotes. — Instantnood 18:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Nobody takes subsequent ownership of foodnotes too.--Huaiwei 18:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No section title

From the Wikipedia entry about Delta Airlines:

It is the 2nd largest airline in the United States (Behind American Airlines)

From the Wikipedia entry about American Airlines:

American Airlines is the largest airline in the world in terms of total passengers transported and fleet size,...

--->Something wrong about that figure on this page, isn´t it ?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.122.78.63 (talk • contribs) .

Disputed Stats

These figures are way, way off. --Mets 05:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

What are these numbers? Passenger miles? Seat miles? Flight seats?

I seriously doubt Aeroflot is larger than Lufthansa, British Airways or the new Air France-KLM except perhaps in unnecessary personnel and ancient planes. 141.53.194.249 13:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the above - the figures also appear to have no date references - how current are the figures? You can't tell how up to date this is. Ardfern 19:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

---

IBERIA , www.iberia.com , in the press release of January 12, 2006 , reported all it's passengers statistics for 2005 . 2005 schedule passengers 27.675.000 (domestic 15.415.000 , international 12.260.000). 2005 ASK 63.628.000 2005 RPK 49.060.000 2005 load factor was 77.1 % . 2005 net profit of 385 millions euros . 10th consecutive year of net profits .

But Iberia flies with an afiliate company called Air Nostrum . Use the same livery , same code . You cannot diferenciate Iberia from Air Nostrum , so i think Iberia total passenger numbers MUST count Air Nostrum as well .

27.675.000 + 4,689,263 = 32,364,263 Passengers in 2005 .

• I changed the stats to the 2005 versions in the world section they seem to be more accurate. Greenboxed 22:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Should each area have its own artcle?

Does anyone think the article would be better organized if each continent had its own article (ie: Largest Airlines of Europe)? Greenboxed 22:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur, although it may make more sense to split the article according to ranking criteria first as has been done for airports and Maritime ports--Huaiwei 12:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't help. This article is mostly statistics and isn't overly large or disorganized. SchmuckyTheCat 16:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have split the articles as suggested, and to follow the format in World's largest airline for example. This should give room for list expansion in their respective articles.--Huaiwei 15:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Africa

Kenya Airways produces more revenue and profit than Ethiopian Airlines. Kenya Airways also fly larger aircraft; EA's fleet is only larger because they have many small planes in their fleet... an example being Fokkers.

Kenya Airways also carries more scheduled passengers.

Fedex

according to the Wikipedia page.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Express#Fleet. FedEx has 626 aircraft plus 18 on order.

We aren't reliable. We don't trust ourselves most of the time. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I started to cleanup the article by adding a table for the first set of data. Any comments please speak! --Flymeoutofhere 11:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sweet. I was looking to do something like that here but never really had the time. Next step after we do that is to find some way to verify this information, but otherwise you're off to the right start. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 15:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if I'll have time to do it all, either. If someone else wants to, feel free to do so. Flymeoutofhere 12:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

IATA & Southwest Airlines

Firstly, this article needs some cleanup... The stats are all discombobulated...

Secondly, the IATA stats cited in the first part of the article do not include Southwest Airlines, which is ranked third in the world for number of passengers carried.

Perhaps some newer stats?

quick thank you

to all you guys who put this page together - great job!

lets make sure this stays updated though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Htg (talk • contribs) 06:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

More International

There is something wrong with the IATA numbers shown in the citation previously on the page for international travellers. This lists the total number of passengers that Ryanair carried in 2006. (Currently year to date they are up to about 43 million - http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/news.php?yr=07&month=jun&story=pax-en-050607) But by no means were all of those passengers international. Ryanair flies domestic routes in several countries. I have put a Fact tag on the list for this reason. Unless someone can cite a source to explain the disparity, I don't think we can rely on those figures. Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have returned the cn tag to the international passengers table as the IATA stats cannot be relied on. Ryanair hasdomestic flights in several countries including Ireland, the UK, Italy and Spain. IATA is saying that the total number of passengers Ryanair carried last year (a shade over 40 million) were international. That is simply not the case, and so the IATA stats must be suspect. Harry was a white dog with black spots 20:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the IATA, the numbers on it's website is what is reported by each individual airline. Seen here.] By the the way, since the numbers from the IATA website are what is currently in the article, the IATA website should be listed as the source. --Michael Greiner 19:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well then clearly Ryanair is lying in what they are reporting. (BTW, these are not IATA figures. They are being reported by IATA from other sources.) Ryanair is clear on its website that it carried a total of 40.5 million passengers in 2006, including all domestic ones (see link in the footnote to the figures). If it is reporting to official sources that it carried 40.5 million international passengers, it is trying to mislead people. Wikipedia should not use sources that have been manipulated as these figures are. Another source is needed to justify the numbers. Citing a source that is clearly wrong, even if it is an official one, is not good enough. Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Nearly all Ryanair flights are international, very few flights are domestic within Ireland, which explains why the total and international figures are very close. I would suggest that we should change Note 1 to reflect this viewpoint. MilborneOne 16:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

A domestic flight is a flight entirely within the borders of one country, not necessarily the country where the airline is based. So their flights between Pisa and Alghero in Italy are classed as domestic for example, not just their flights in Ireland. The total and international figures are not just "very close" - they are identical. So either way, there is something wrong. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct and wrong at the same time. While the definition of a "domestic flight" is correct, it is certainly dependent on just where the airline is based at. A flight operated "domestically" within the same country an airline is based and a "domestic" flight in a country other than the airline's home country requires entirely different air rights, the later of which is very much rarer in the industry. Therefore, it is an industry practise not to classify the later as "domestic".--Huaiwei 01:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but within the EU open skies agreement, the EU constitutes one market for its members when it comes to cabotage. Therefore a flight entirely within the EU could almost be classed as "domestic". But very few airlines (Air Berlin and Easyjet being two but nowhere on the scale of Ryanair) actually operate domestic flights in countries where they are not registered. Ryanair is unique in the extent that it does this, so the position does need to be clarified. But it is certainly true that not all Ryanair flights are international, so the figures remain suspect. Harry was a white dog with black spots 08:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

An open-skies agreement dosent mean a cabotage flight suddenly becomes a domestic one (in the classic sense). We may discuss till the dawn of time, but unless you can cite a verfiable true-life example of any airline which actually classifies cabotage flights as domestic flights, then we arent going to get very far. On the other hand, I know of several airlines who do not do as you claim. In the Asian market alone, Singapore Airlines flies between Johannesburg and Cape Town, but all its flights are classified international. Emirates Airline fly between Rome and Milan, but do not report any domestic flights. Cathay Pacific flies between Cairns and Brisbane, Adelaide and Melbourne as well as Penang and Kuala Lumpur, but is also considered a fully international airline.--Huaiwei 10:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I just double-verified Ryanair's figures, and they show 42.5 million total passengers flown in 2006[2]. This compares with IATA's 40.532 million international passengers. Are there still doubts about these figures, for they arent exactly "the same"?--Huaiwei 01:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well then Ryanair is lying in the link you put above, because their rolling year-on-year stats show a total of 40.532 million passengers as at the end of December 2006. They didn't reach 42.5 million year-on-year until March 2007, according to their rolling stats. Why the difference? So yes, there are still doubts. Harry was a white dog with black spots 09:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hah well they probably can't decide if they are supposed to factor in no-shows then? :D Your concers are probably valid, but I do find that note a tad too long.--Huaiwei 10:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

NEW WAY IT LOOKS

the old way looked better i think it should be reverted.(Sparrowman980)

Wikipedia isnt just about asthetics. We have to consider usability and ease of content management. The old list was way too long, and there is not much room left to consider other possible means of measuring an airline's size. Ideas to split the list up into multiple pages has been mooted since last year, and I have decided to be bold and go ahead with it, such that it is similar in style somewhat to World's busiest port.--Huaiwei 16:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You are required to ask and have people agree to it.(Sparrowman980)

I did tell you to read, didnt I? Check the discussions above this page. If you cannot offer a better reason for your constant reverts, I will tag your edits as vandalism and sound out the admins accordingly.--Huaiwei 03:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

For what you are doing you must ask and if you want to bring admins in it i would like to what your doing is BS!Do it right.

To repeat myself, there has been prior discussions on this. Kindly do some reading before constantly repeating the same refrain.--Huaiwei 03:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

K so i read and they said they you shouldn't! "Quote:No, it wouldn't help. This article is mostly statistics and isn't overly large or disorganized. SchmuckyTheCat 16:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)(Sparrowman980 04:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

One user stated reservations that it may not be neccesary as he felt the page won't grow much further. That was a full eight months ago, when the page wasent that huge yet.[3] The page has apparantly grown alot since then, so is his comment still relevant? Kindly note the context.--Huaiwei 04:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that those comments are not relevant any more so what you did is 8 months old so you should re-discuss it then! (Sparrowman980 04:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

I have great difficulty comprehending the logic behind your last comment.--Huaiwei 04:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

New format Redux

As even an administrator has found my edits too bold and devoid of previous discussions despite obvious evidence of this, I would like to make another request for editors to review my revamped version. There are several reasons for this:

• It trims the article down to a manageable size, such that there is room for expansion to include historical lists (the world's largest airlines 50 years ago is most likely quite different and not any less encyclopedic) in individual, smaller articles.
• A trimmer article can also account for the fact that there are multiple means of measuring airline sizes, most of which are not mentioned at all in the old version, and which will not have much space to discuss them anyway, let alone providing a list for each possible means of measure.
• My proposed format is not new. World's busiest airport and World's busiest port already follow this format. There is little reason why this should be left out, since it has worked fine for the other two.

If there are no major disagreements in the following days, I will restore the stripped-down version as quoted above, but including any edits made by users to the existing list of course. Please offer your feedback. Thanks!--Huaiwei 14:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no need to do it so what if some others have that format we really no need.(Sparrowman980 14:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC))

Kindly explain why this is unnecesary, especially in light of the reasoning I offered above. Could you offer a viable alternative solution especially since the current list is obviously too long to contain all information neccesary for a less POVed article which only considers some means of measure, but not others?--Huaiwei 14:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Until there is a agreement and others agree or diagree to this we must wait.(Sparrowman980 01:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

And wait for? Another AFD? It is interesting to note that in the recent AFD, the nominator has actually expressed preference for the condensed version which I proposed. Another user has also suggested a page split, although that is probably because the list as it is only ranks airlines by passenger numbers and fleet sizes anyway. The only one who has been opposing the move is you, and the only reasoning you could provide was the "need to discuss major changes". I take that as null and void since there has obviously been a previous dicussion, and there is one now as we speak.--Huaiwei 08:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The current format sux, it is too big, and duplicates all the by continent articles. SchmuckyTheCat

Thanks. Your previous comment[4] has been taken as an excuse to revert war.[5] I hope that comment no longer applies as strongly this time round, considering the article has grown much bigger ever since?--Huaiwei 08:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh btw in case you are not aware, I was the one who created all those sub-articles with ranks by continent and other means of measure, and have downsized this article to this version as per my reasons stated above. Do comment. Thanks!--Huaiwei 08:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not tracking exactly what is missing or added in the little spat between you and the sparrowman. I'm trying to make summary style tables of the "per continent" sections. Then hopefully kill the sections entirely and make one table with a column for continent. I think your proposed lead has more information in it, and that is a good thing. Sparrowman wants way too much information (which is just data, not article text) thrown directly in the users face, which is not a good thing. My previous comments of a year or more ago no longer apply to the current article. SchmuckyTheCat

Great. Meanwhile, your summary table idea sounds interesting. Any proposed samples for this?--Huaiwei 14:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so good with the tables creation - but, method: Combine all the current tables into a single one. Add an additional column labeled "Continent". Sort. SchmuckyTheCat

This sounds like a good idea. Dave Rebecca 19:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What we should have is one list of the largest airlines by fleet and passengers then the names of the continents and there largest airlines if that sounds good?(Sparrowman980 02:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

I mentioned time and again that the current article, which only lists airlines by a few means of measure is not adequate, and that has been one of the primary reason why I see a need to trim it to give space for other means of measure. Your "solution" to lists airlines by passengers carried and fleet size, does not address this at all, and only makes this worse. Kindly put some thought into your ideas before suggesting them. Notice you arent even commenting on why your solution is good.--Huaiwei 12:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If there are no further opposition lodged, I will effect the above changes in a few days time. I my attempt to include the suggested summary table if possible.--Huaiwei 14:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Before you go changing we need a better consensus from the other editors and two is not enough(Sparrowman980 08:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC))

Aa far as anyone can see, you are the sole person opposing the move, yet providing zero reason for sticking to your stand. So in actual fact, no valid opposition has yet to be lodged. The move will proceed if the status quo remains.--Huaiwei 12:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all there are 2 people that have only came on this article once and they have not returned since and i well continue to argue this and fight this until you or i get banned!(Sparrowman980 05:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC))

Are you threatening me? Just because I choose not to comment doesn't mean I don't still think this article needs work. SchmuckyTheCat

Now i never threatened you or anyone and also it needs work but just changing it the way he has it wont fix it !(Sparrowman980 07:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC))

Requested move

User:Sparrowman980 recently moved this page from World's largest airline to The World's largest airlines. This undiscussed moved contravenes the naming conventions on at least three counts: Prefer singular nouns, Avoid the definite article ("the") at the beginning of the page name, and Lowercase second and subsequent words in titles (some may feel World is a proper noun thou). I was able to remove the "the", to where it is now, but I could not move it back to where it was. Kindly voice any objections for the above move request if you have any, particularly after taking into account relevant naming convention guidelines.--Huaiwei 12:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Singular titles are preferred in most cases, but not when they would yield titles that don't make sense. Sports teams, for example, keep their plural forms. This article is not about "the world's largest airline" and doesn't try to be. A list title would take care of the plural problem. I'd suggest List of airlines by size or something along those lines. Dekimasuよ! 14:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It may be, if my proposed revamp of this article is reinstated. Note also World's busiest airport and World's busiest port. The subject in question is no longer a list of entities, but the claim of "world's largest foo" itself. Btw, names of sports teams are proper nouns, and will be plural if that is the official name of the said entity. This, on the other hand, is not a proper noun.--Huaiwei 14:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well i understand you are on my case about everything but largest airline means on airline so airlines makes sense.(Sparrowman980 04:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC))

Not that I can help it, as you continue to wreak havoc in the same few articles, and without consultation to boot, so that was kinda ironical I would think!--Huaiwei 14:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 16:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

not wikipedia?

Is there a reason this article doesn't fit into the what Wikipedia is not statistics which states

Statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readibility and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource as freely available reference material for the construction of related encyclopedic articles on that topic. Infoboxes or tables should also be considered to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists.

perhaps it should be moved to wikisource or get serious amounts of non-tabled text and information. Pdbailey 21:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've looked over what we have with this article and its "sister" articles (List of largest airlines in Europe, List of largest airlines in Asia, List of largest airlines in Oceania, and List of largest airlines in Africa). I see that there are the two methods of measuring an airlines size: by fleet size or by scheduled passengers carried. This is probably not what is important here because however this article winds up measuring airlines' size, we will still have an article that's a massive list with too many tables. It's all just too hard to use.

I truly agree with Pdbailey. There needs to be sufficient prose to go along with the tables. In other words, the tables should compliment a written presentation. E dog95 04:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone who writes in the article have any intention or desire to make this into an article? Pdbailey 03:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Would this version be a step in the right direction, although it still lacks proper referencing for now?--Huaiwei 10:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't see much that would hang together and make it encyclopedic with the current set of editors and interests--it's just a bunch of tables. What's so bad about moving it to wikisource? Pdbailey 01:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Because for all practical purposes it would destroy the value of the article as a free public reference resource, as well as more or less eliminating the chance of timely future updates. Wikisource is unknown to anyone but wikipedia editors, and this information is of value to readers. This article is visited by over 600 people a day on average, which is far more than the majority of articles which you would consider encyclopedic. Statistical tables are an entirely legitimate way of presenting information in an encyclopedia, but there often isn't room in the main article on a topic to include all of them. Think of this article as a breakout article from the main article about airlines and your problem will disappear. Luwilt (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Prose would just be needless padding for the sake of it. There is no reason to put this information into prose except to protect it from editors with misconceptions of what an encyclopedia should contain. A prose version of this information would actually be a lot worse, and less useful. Luwilt (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggested move.

During the AFD discussion, User:Crazysuit suggested moving this page to either List of airlines by size or List of largest airlines. I concur with the latter suggestion, but wanted to be sure this has consensus with the editors here before making the move. I note the page originally existed at the latter location but was moved here later... can anybody explain why? JulesH 07:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The current page title contravenes WP:MOS. Fully support moving it back to List of largest airlines with regional or other forks as necessary. Wl219 17:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This article was renamed when it was revamped into this version[6], as per similar articles for World's busiest airport and World's busiest port. A single user suddenly came forward and began to wikiwar over this new format without really giving a good reason for it, except that "major changes should be discussed prior to changes", despite the fact that there has been prior discussion on this right here in this talkpage. The article has now settled in his preferred version due to my refusal to continue a revert war, despite countless discussions where he has garnered little support. He then proceeded to create a forked article at List of largest airlines by category, which is essentially similar to this article but with his favourite picture at the top of the article (which I sense could be his real reason for revert warring). I do not feel this article should be moved back until the above dispute is settled.--Huaiwei 13:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

I've put a request to move the page to "List of largest airlines by category". Any comments? Cool Blue^{talk to me} 16:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Sparrowman980 has been involved in past heated disputes in this article, and has since created a forked article at List of largest airlines by category with his preferred version. I am not too sure if the above request makes much sense in this regard, when that article is probably good for deletion for being a forked article to advance a POV.--Huaiwei 13:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• That article has been changed to redirect to this one. -Fnlayson 03:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes

The recent changes to this article amount to vandalism in my opinion. Twice now the consensus has been overwhelmingly to keep this article. Yet the recent changes seem to be an attempt to delete it by the back door in defiance of that consensus. Making major changes to an article that has been voted "keep" in a given format twice in rapid succession without any discussion is not acceptable, especially when it appears that the editor is trying to impose his will against the consensus. I have reverted to the version before the changes were made. If an editor wants to make major changes, they should be discussed here first. Harry was a white dog with black spots 07:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Harry. I was worried about this article, it started flying apart at the seams. I'm glad someone put it back together, in a useful format. —Fudoreaper 05:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all i have been the one wanting to keep it in its original form and o only did it fearing it would be deleted the article! Sparrowman980 07:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you care to explain this version which you tried to implement[7], especially when it seems to be similar yet inferior version to the one [8] you kept reverting over?--Huaiwei 15:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Groups

Do we include groups or not? We need to be consistent. Some are and some aren't. Harry was a white dog with black spots 18:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No, groups should not be included. If an airline has its own AOC, it is a separate airline and should not be included to inflate figures for any 'group'. My two kopeks. --Russavia 18:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

One should not simplistically assume group figures are there just to "inflate" figures for the fun of it. Group figures may actually be a more technically accurate reflection of the company's operational performance, especially where all airlines are fully owned within that group by a dominant carrier. It is not uncommon for airlines to move regional or local operations to feeder airlines, and by doing this, it will appear that the main airline is doing less well than it actually is. We end up giving this impression that smaller, compact airlines are larger relatively.--Huaiwei 01:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a more accurate list of the largest airline company firms than this with these mergers.

• KLM-Air France
• International Airlines Group
• LATAM
• Synergy Group Avianca-TACA
• AMR Corporation
• Continental United

I wish to know which is the biggest airline firm... airlines themseleves are now meaningless as they are parts of conglomerates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.183.134.72 (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Latest reverts

After a cleanup and expansion of this article to include all 9 tables taken direct from the IATA's website[9], User:Sparrowman980 now insists on adding Qantas figures into the table despite its non existence in the primary sources. And he did so by using figures for Qantas Group of 36 million, when Qantas itself flies about 24 million (in 2006)[10]. All other entries by IATA shows figures only for the airline, not the group, and his persistent inclusion of a single airline's group figure renders the entire table inaccurate. This he persists in doing twice[11][12] despite my notice[13]. It should also be mentioned that User:Sparrowman980 has dropped some interesting comments in my talkpage concurrently.--Huaiwei 01:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

In light of User:Sparrowman980's persistent revert warring and refusal to discuss this in a sensible and amicable manner, I have made a 3RR nomination against him at[14]. My only regret is my failure to do this sooner, instead of engaging in this tit-for-tat with him in the first place.--Huaiwei 06:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the page to reflect data in stated source. Any further protests, please indicate them here instead of simply reverting.--Huaiwei 01:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I note that a User:Sparrowman98 has almost immediately reinserted Qantas figures, but this time by inserting its total passenger figures (year ended 30 June) in the international figures table[15]. Needless to say, this factual inaccuracy was promptly removed.--Huaiwei 02:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No one listens too you, maybe that should tell you something. Sparrowman98 03:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering you were blocked in the previous instance, that probably tells you something also. You have been warned before against your persistently disruptive behaviour by multiple users. Take time to reflect on that.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated User:Sparrowman98 a second time in a space of 2 weeks for revert-warring[16], this time for reverting edits by User:MilborneOne and myself.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

This RFC is over the inclusion of Qantas Group's operational figures in a primary table devoid of airline groups. The tables in question were sourced from IATA's official site, and represents operational figures for airlines minus subsidiaries as at 31 December 2006[17]. User:Sparrowman980 has been adding figures for Qantas which are for the entire Qantas Group of subsidiaries (Qantas + Qantaslink+ Jetstar+ Jetconnect), and which are dated 30 June 2007[18]. This would be statistically inaccurate. I have voiced this concern in the article talkpage in the preceeding section, but he has failed to respond. In the meantime, we have been involved in a revert war, and he has dropped some comments in my talkpage which appear to be veering towards WP:OWN. I request for outsider intervention to resolve this dispute.--Huaiwei 05:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's my understanding all planes involved are owned by Qantas. Some are registered to the different subsidiaries though. What's the policy or guideline on how it should be handled? -Fnlayson 01:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your enquiry. The figures in question here are over the number of passengers flown. The source from which the tables under dispute were taken from consistently displays figures flown by the said airline only, and not by its subsidiaries, even if the subsidiaries may be fully-owned. The jury is still out on how airline groups should be handled, but until then, it is prudent to maintain data consistency and to adhere to the referenced source until alternative sources are found.--Huaiwei 02:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, sort of a consensus rule then. Why are subsidiary planes not listed in the top XX flown tables but seem to be in the fleet size table at the bottom? Just seems inconsistent unless I'm missing something. -Fnlayson 02:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
      • This is because IATA published figures for the first three sections in this article. Aircraft fleets by table is a (embarrassing?) piece of work resulting originally from users simply copying over figures from airline wikipedia articles. Efforts to replace these figures with sourced content was undertaken, but because there is as yet no independent published list of airline fleet sizes which may be sourced for comparison purposes, we end up with people citing figures for airline groups or individual airlines as and when this information is published in the airline's websites. Worse, some folks seem intent on showing group figures only even if broken down figures are available, for reasons which may be against the spirit of wikipedia.--Huaiwei 02:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Looks like some text or general notes are needed in the article to clarify that. Just my opinion... -Fnlayson 02:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
          • I agree, and will consider ways to make this explicit. Early versions of these tables are actually quite blatant on the source of the tables, but were toned down in favour of the standard referencing formats. I suppose some text should still be reintroduced to avoid confusing or misleading readers.--Huaiwei 03:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
            • I added a general note to those to tables stating IATA source. If you or someone else has a better idea go for it. -Fnlayson 04:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
• Have a closer look at iata.org: WATS2006 gives us the figures from 2005. Please compare it with the numbers published by the airlines, e.g Lufthansa --Charliebravo1 07:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistent presentation

Anybody explain why:

• Scheduled passengers carried lists Continental Airlines as unplaced at the bottom of the table ?
• Scheduled International passengers has two extra unplaced airlines at the bottom ?
• Scheduled passenger-kilometres flow has Singapore Airlines unplaced at the bottom of the table ?
• All the other tables have 10 (but see above above could be 11 or 12 sometimes) but the fleet has 21 ?

I could be WP:BOLD and delete stuff but I may have missed something but it does looks wrong to the reader as if somebody hasd forgotten to delete lines. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Sparrowman980 all the tables are now 10 except fleet size, anybody now why that should be different? MilborneOne (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Those entries were left hanging there because they were in the top ten spot for year 2005. This is for comparison purposes year-on-year, since the columns are actually for displaying two years' worth of data. I have restored the entries accordingly.--Huaiwei (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Huaiwei, I understand it just wasnt clear from the table. I have split the fleet list into passengers and cargo and limited the list to 10. The cargo airlines include a lot of franchise operators and in FedEx case a large number of single-engined C208s which appear to distort the fleet table. MilborneOne (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I wanted to add a "-" in their ranking cells, but that causes the entire row to become invisible, so I left it as that for now. Meanwhile, I agree to the overhaul in the fleet section. Besides splitting them between cargo and passenger, we may even consider having tables for narrow-body and wide-body fleets only...or even jet vs turboprops! Too much detail, perhaps, so it can go into List of world's largest airlines by fleet?--Huaiwei (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a bit tiresome! I have returned fleets back to 10 to keep all the tables consistent. This keep being reverted to a list of 20 or 21. Can reverters please explain why this table should be different to all the others in the article. Thank You. MilborneOne (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

We need to add more airlines to largest airlines by fleet size

I think it is more specific if you just restore the other ten airlines that have been deleted because it is more specific that way. User:Gorillazfeelgoodinc (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, not sure what "more specific" means have you a better english word that relates to what you are trying to say. Not sure why an extra ten is OK why not hundred! The list was limited to ten because all the other lists on this page are limited to ten. Dont get me wrong if their is a good reason why the fleet list, or any other list on the page should be longer then we just need a rational explanation and consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

More specific in what sense? Please do be more specific in your request here, because that is simply not a good enough reason to buck the trend here. If one wants an extensive list, List of world's largest airlines by fleet already serves that purpose.--Huaiwei (talk) 07:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Some modifications have to be done. Air France-KLM-Transavia never have 400 aircrafts together. This is what Air France owns alone. Air France-KLM fleet is composed of 569 aircrafts, and Transavia 19. Which places them number 2 with 588 Aircrafts in their fleet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.176.186.110 (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The Lufthansa fleet size is confusing: Ref. 21 gives a total of 345 planes, the number inserted in the list is just 276!

Fleet size only includes the mainline fleet, the source gives total including Lufthasa Regional and other airlines. Spikydan1 (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ryanair most international passengers carried - is correct

There has been some points of contention on this article as to whether the figures published by IATA for Ryanair carriage of international passengers is correct or not. I have spoken on the phone to the statistics section of IATA in Montreal about another matter, and remembered this issue and asked them about it. Firstly, the lady I spoke to did mention that they have had many enquiries in regards to this, but yes, Ryanair carrying the most international passengers is a correct statistic, even when taking into account the small number of domestic services it operates. I was told that IATA and ICAO have an agreement that IATA will utilise forms and definitions as set down by ICAO. The statistics are reported, from my understanding, and will attempt to get this in writing from IATA, to IATA from the airlines via way of the airlines' reporting to their State ICAO member, which are then compiled and utilised by organisations such as IATA in their own reporting and statistics. The form which is used for such reporting is Form A - (01/00) - AIR TRANSPORT REPORTING FORM - TRAFFIC — COMMERCIAL AIR CARRIERS. The blank form is available for download at [19] (PDF file - 62kb), or if that link is not working at ECONOMIC ANALYSES AND DATABASES (EAD) SECTION - STATISTICS PROGRAMME - STATISTICAL AIR TRANSP0RT REPORTING FORMS - Air Transport Bureau division of the International Civil Aviation Organization. On Page 3 of the Reporting Instructions section under a heading titled "DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED" it states the following:

Flight stage. A flight stage is the operation of an aircraft from take-off to its next landing. A flight stage is classified as either international or domestic based on the following definitions:

International. A flight stage with one or both terminals in the territory of a State, other than the State in which the air carrier has its principal place of business.

Domestic. A flight stage not classifiable as international. Domestic flight stages include all flight stages flown between points within the domestic boundaries of a State by an air carrier whose principal place of business is in that State. Flight stages between a State and territories belonging to it, as well as any flight stages between two such territories, should be classified as domestic. This applies even though a stage may cross international waters or over the territory of another State.

NOTES:

1. In the case of multinational air carriers owned by partner States, traffic within each partner State should be reported separately as domestic and all other traffic as international.

2. “Foreign” cabotage traffic (i.e. traffic carried between city-pairs in a State other than the one where the reporting carrier has its principal place of business) should be reported as international traffic. (MY BOLDING)

3. A technical stop should not result in any flight stage being classified differently than would have been the case had the technical stop not been made.

As per the 2nd note, domestic flights of Ryanair in the UK, France, Italy, etc, etc are classed by ICAO and IATA as international flights because they are between city-pairs in a State other than the one where Ryanair has its principal place of business, which for Ryanair is Ireland. Therefore, the figure of 40,532,000 for Ryanair is correct given that they are reporting inline with requirements of the ICAO, the Irish authorities (of which Ireland is a member state of the ICAO) and IATA.

It is not our job as Wikipedians to engage in original research, which means we can't very analyse figures or anything else, we have to state what reliable sources write. Either IATA and ICAO are reliable or they are not. I believe they are, as do others due to their publications being widely used by news media, journalists, authors, etc, so I am placing Ryanair figures back, and removing the notes inline with how these figures are reported. And I will obtain written confirmation of this from IATA, however that should not really be required as we need to report what they report.

On a sidenote, a little original research of my own, inline with the above, the only route which would be considered domestic as per reporting guidelines would be the Dublin-Cork route. Are figures for that route published or known? Or when did the route begin, was it operational in '06? --Россавиа ^Диалог 20:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the note based on the above. The number is still not entirely accurate, but I doubt the number of domestic Irish flights would knock FR out of top spot. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If Ryanair is largest by "Scheduled international passengers carried", then they should be included in "Scheduled international passenger-kilometres flown" even if they don't fly intercontinental ? What is their figure ?--BIL (talk) 11:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Qantas fleet size

Qantas fly 230 aircraft, there are more since this statistic, with the new A380's. This would put Qantas 15th in passenger fleet size

The Qantas fleet size is listed at 135...Fleet size does not include orders or reginal aircraft not flown by Qantas Spikydan1 (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Air France-KLM

I dont think the two flags should be there since it's a french-incorporated company headquartered in France. It's majority-owned by french investors and adding the dutch flag doesn't make sense. True KLM was originally dutch but it's not anymore. Abdelkweli (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If we apply the same logic for all companies there will be plenty of flags next to the companies. Right now we are not being consistent. Abdelkweli (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking Air France-KLM should not be in the list anyway. It is a holding company and the two airlines operate under their own operating licences and should be listed in their own right. MilborneOne (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MilborneOne...This page is about airlines and not airline holding companies. If you can find numbers for the two airlines then go ahead and break them up. Spikydan1 (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Airlines are businesses. It isn't terribly important if one business uses two brands. No one would break up Coca-Cola's revenue by drink before adding the Coca-Cola company to a list of companies by size. This article is already seriously skewed towards the needs of airplane enthusiasts, rather than people interested in business, and your proposal would make this imbalance even worse. Piccadilly (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Brand names matter. Strictly speaking SAS is four airlines, with names (translated to English) SAS Sweden, SAS Denmark, SAS Norway, SAS International. But they use one brand name. Lufthansa has a daughter company Lufthansa CityLine and one Germanwings. Lufthansa CityLine uses the Lufthansa brand name, but Germanwings should not be included. --BIL (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I kind of think we need to acknowledge the fact we are looking at the biggest companies. Two or three airlines under one umbrella company basically constitute one airline as they are not designed to compete with one another but compliment one another to gain market share, against other airlines firms and companies under one "umbrella" also seeking to be the biggest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.128.76.155 (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There are good points on both sides here, but either way we have to decide on a standard to use here, especially since we've now got British Airways-Iberia in basically the exact same setup. Should we list Air France, KLM, BA, and Iberia as four separate airlines? If not, we need to use two, and exactly two companies in each list. We would also need to decide which flags would be used. In my opinion, these are four separate airlines. They don't fit squarely into our lists, but there's a difference between Air France-KLM and, say, United-United Express, or even Lufthansa-Germanwings. As stated above, we aren't interested in holding companies, which is why United and Continental are still separate. A parent/subsidiary relationship is different than two airlines owned by one holding company. Further, who cares about how many destinations BA and Iberia served together? I vote for splitting the four companies up, and that seems to be the consensus here.75.34.181.147 (talk) 04:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. If there were an article entitled Airline holding company—and maybe there should be—it would be entirely appropriate to list the largest ones. But a holding company is not an airline. As long as two airlines are using different liveries and have different public identities, they're operating as two airlines, not one. This difference strikes me as pretty basic.—e.g., NWA disappeared with its acquisition while KLM did not. Rivertorch (talk) 05:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Missing list - revenue

This article seems to have been assembled by airplane enthusiasts rather than business enthusiasts, because it is missing a list by the criterion generally used to rank businesses, which is what airlines are, namely revenue. Piccadilly (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Aeroflot

Aeroflot, under the Soviets, was the World's Largest Airline for many years, it deserves honorable mention.--71.246.30.208 (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree! --Degen Earthfast (talk) 15:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

During the Soviet era, Aeroflot was the Soviet national airline and the largest airline in the world. By the end of the 1930s Aeroflot had become the world's largest airline, employing more than 4,000 pilots and 60,000 other service personnel and operating around 3,000 aircraft, of which 75% were considered obsolete by its own standards. By 1967, Aeroflot was the world's largest airline, amassing a fleet equal to that of the largest American carriers combined. In 1976 Aeroflot carried its 100 millionth passenger. In 1988 Aeroflot operated 1,600 medium- and long-range passenger and cargo aircraft plus many types of general and special-purpose fixed and rotary-wing aircraft. For geological, weather, and other scientific and exploration missions, Aeroflot used specially equipped airplanes and helicopters. Medical assistance and evacuation, especially in remote areas, was provided by aircraft such as the An-14 and An-28 and by the Ka-26 and Mi-8 helicopters, which were able to operate from most level surfaces. Various types of agricultural missions were performed by the work horse, the An-2, and its updated version, the An-3, as well as the Ka-26 helicopter. Aeroflot was also responsible for such services as ice patrol in the Arctic Ocean and escorting of ships through frozen seas, oil exploration, power line surveillance, and transportation and heavy lifting support on construction projects using the the Mi-10 flying crane. Hauling of heavy cargo, including vehicles, was performed by the Mi-26. In 1986 Aeroflot served over 3,600 population centers and had a route network, excluding overlapping routes, that extended 1,156,000 kilometers, of which 185,000 kilometers were international routes. Aeroflot's share of total freight transported by all means of transportation was only 0.01 percent, or 3,157,000 tons originated. Nevertheless, it carried 116.1 million passengers (almost 19 percent of the total passenger-kilometers), of whom 3.4 million were on international flights. The disproportion between domestic and international air travel reflected not only foreign travel restrictions imposed on Soviet citizens but underscored the importance of aircraft as an essential--sometimes the sole--link to remote cities, towns, and settlements. Thus, in 1986 Siberia, the Far North, and the Far East, although sparsely populated, accounted for 26 percent of Aeroflot's cargo and passenger transport. In 1992 following the break up of the Soviet Union Aeroflot was divided into more than 300 regional airlines. International routes were operated separately as Aeroflot - Russian International Airlines (ARIA). Some airline companies which were created from the old Aeroflot are now flag carriers of the newly independent countries - for example, Uzbekistan Airlines, and Lithuanian Airlines. Smaller regional airlines which emerged out of the old Aeroflot - sometimes just one-plane operations - were sometimes referred to as Babyflots.

Further Reading: "Aeroflot: An Airline and its Aircraft," from Paladwr Press, Oct 1992 by R.E.G. Davies, (Curator of Air Transport at the Smithsonian), ISBN-10: 0962648310, ISBN-13: 978-0962648311 --Degen Earthfast (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

All of this detail is not needed on this page, sure it can be metioned but it belongs on the Aeroflot page. Spikydan1 (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I was just doing a Google search and found this: http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-12781.html A large amount of the sentences are the same exact word for word. You can take data from a website and source it but you can not copy it, see Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Spikydan1 (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Country data is a mirror site for the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress who produces the Area handbook/Country Studies. All of which are in the public domain. "Information contained in the online Country Studies is not copyrighted and thus is available for free and unrestricted use by researchers. As a courtesy, however, appropriate credit should be given to the series." see here [20].--Degen Earthfast (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If this data was to be used here...It should be cited to the Library of Congress and not to a mirror site. It should also have a footnote saying it was copied from a public domain site, ex: Civil Reserve Air Fleet.

I don't think all this info needs to be on this page, just a note saying Aeroflot was once the world's largest airline and a few basic details. Almost all of this info should go on the Aeroflot history page. Spikydan1 (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Pared down much of the Aeroflot part and reinstated it IAW Spikydani's recommendation.--209.213.220.227 (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't remove your edit....But, your new edit still had way to much detail. The details about Aeroflot probably should be one or two sentences and and be put in a newly created section called "Historical largest airlines". Again, this page is not about Aeroflot, if people want to find out more than the very basic details about its once large size, they should go to the Aeroflot page. Take a short break from editing this page and see if any other editors want to say anything about this before adding it back in a day or two. Spikydan1 (talk) 03:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Dan. Not sure we want to open this up to historical airlines, as I think the parameters, esp timespan, would be too broad, but we can see wa we come up with, and it might work. Also, it may not be a copyvio to copy PD text, but it is poor form, and should be rewritten first. As it is, one or two sentences is all that is needed on Aeroflot here.

Drastically pared down and rewrote the Aeroflot paragraph.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 01:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

which is the world largest airlines —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.128.49 (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

International again

Ryanair has a small number of domestic routes in Ireland (Dublin-Cork, Dublin-Kerry). Therefore, the total passengers flown can simply not be the same number as total international passengers flown. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Northwest/Delta

With the merger fully complete, and all flights switching over to Delta certificates, shouldn't Northwest not show up on this list anymore and be folded into the delta numbers? We should look up the new data based on how they merged routes and fleets etc. 129.170.241.32 (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You can't change the past and most of the figures on the page are historical, the only numbers that are present are the fleet size and desinations served and it looks like they were already combined. Spikydan1 (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Domestic/International

Is there any point at all having a list for international and a list for domestic?? European airlines will always be higher in international as they are very small countries and US/Chinese airlines will always be higher in the domestic lists because they have massive domestic markets. If you counted the EU as a domestic market, or inter-state US/Chinese as international, then the figures turn on their head. So what exactly are these lists supposed to tell us? What is the information that is meant to be conveyed? The only useful list is a total domestic & international list.- _J.Logan`^t: 21:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of this list is to convey all the ways airlines can be measured and airlines can and are measured by the amount of domestic passengers they carry. It does not matter that US airlines have an unfair advantage because they have a larger domestic market. Spikydan1 (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Well why not measure them by intercontinental air travel as well then, and the number of passengers each carries to Australia and so on. Separate domestic and international lists don't actually say anything of relevance at all because of different country sizes; in essence is says nothing about the size of the airline, only the country they come from.

And from your wording I'll just make clear that I'm not saying that "US airlines have an unfair advantage", if you look at the total passengers list they dominate that also, but that list is the only one that is actually helpful.- _J.Logan`^t: 08:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know why International is in passenger-miles, when it is dominated by carriers from metric-using countries; while Domestic is in passenger-kilometers, when it is dominated by U.S. carriers.... Some consistency would be good. Pick one unit and stick with it. Ehurtley (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Aye, we can have both as well or use the template to convert one into the other in the same box.- _J.Logan`^t: 08:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Emirates and Singapore Airlines - double-counted figures?

Would the figures for their international passengers carried and freight tonne flown be somehow double counted? They both carry many many transit passengers (e.g. Emirates on routes between South Asia/East Asia and Europe), and they use their hubs for distributing their cargo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.177.66.30 (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

List of airline holding companies

May I just suggest we tackle the accuracy of this list by working from the bases of The list of airline holding companies, parent companies, and investment firms, involved in the airline passenger and cargo transportation business.

Yeah I know it is a complicated task, but airlines are pretty meaningless when they are actually owned by another entity which can buy, or sell, or close them down at random to satisfy a firms overall financial goals or needs in relation to its other airlines. Martinair Holland for example is an airline on its way out to meet the needs of KLM-Air France which it is owned by. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.183.134.72 (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

What is going on?

Why are airlines being listed (for fleet size) as airlines that are owned by other airlines or those that have merged, even when there are separate operating certificates? This makes no sense. Also, can we get some accurate numbers for the fleets (not including regionals)? 174.5.11.131 (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Lufthansa fleet size

According to the Lufthansa entry, and Lufthansa's website (http://investor-relations.lufthansa.com/en/fakten-zum-unternehmen/fleet.html), they have more than 700 aircraft in their fleet (they report 710). How comes the number in the list here is so much lower, surely 432 aircraft aren't operated by subsidiaries? Also, on the topic of subsidiaries and holding companies - I agree with Piccadilly that this article is probably more useful in terms comparing businesses rather than operators. Whatsoverthere (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistency: BA Iberia/ International Airlines Group

Some lists list British Airways, some the international airlines group. Consistency is needed between the terms 94.1.42.108 (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

They are not the same thing - British Airways is an airline the International Airlines Group isnt it is just a holding company. As this is about the world's largest airline the groups should not be listed but as as the game is to get your favourite airline at the top of the list then both groups and airlines are listed. So the whole page is inconsistent. MilborneOne (talk) 13:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)