Talk:Aeroflot/Archive 1

Bourne Supremacy

I don't remember Aeroflot figuring into this movie. Can someone enlighten me? - Sekicho

• An Il-96 at SVO was shown for around 1 sec in the movie. Hardly worthy of a mention Russavia 14:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Amman, Jordan codeshare

Since we are listing other codeshares, how can you remove this one? -Joseph (Talk) 02:47, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

As I said, Aeroflot doesn't use their own aircraft to fly that route. When showing destinations, one should only list those that the said airline uses their planes to fly to.

As for the others that are listed, Aeroflot actually uses their aircraft in that codeshare. If Aeroflot DOES NOT use their aircraft for any other listed codeshares, those should be moved to another section. WhisperToMe 05:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Iljuschin Il-62/-62M

I missed these Airplane in the Article. 16:16, April,18th.2005 Def

FLy the Aeroflot!

During the Soviet era Aeroflot was a synonym for Russian civil aviation. One of the rare examples of Soviet commercial advertisement was Aeroflot's slogan, "Fly on Aeroflot planes!" ("Летайте самолетами Аэрофлота!"). The irony was that Aeroflot had no competitors and it was virtually impossible for an average Soviet citizen to fly on a non-Aeroflot plane.

Well perhaps they meant people should use the (Aeroflot) plane instead of the train or the bus. Meursault2004 ~

I would assume crossing the USSR would be faster (cheaper?) by plane than by car, train, etc

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Aeroflot service to the U.S. suspended

I've merged the two paragraphs that dealt with Aeroflot service to the U.S. being suspended because they were contradicting each other. They were also in the "Accidents/Incidents" section, which is supposed to refer to aircraft accidents involving Aeroflot aircraft, which Korean Air Flight 007 did not. The new paragraph is:

• Aeroflot started commercial flights to the United States in 1968. However, in 1979 these flights were suspended by the U.S. Government in response to the Soviet intervention into Afghanistan. Aeroflot flights were further suspended on December 29, 1981, in response to Soviet actions in Poland [1], and again on September 15, 1983, in response to the Soviet Union's shoot-down of Korean Air Flight 007 over its territory [2]. Aeroflot was allowed to resume flights to the United States in 1986.

It's still not exactly clear why service had to be suspended again and again; after it was first suspended in 1979, was it merely a political statement not causing any actual change in service (i.e., service was already suspended, you can't suspend it more)? The sources don't say. Any input is appreciated. —Cleared as filed. 14:07, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Management

User:Arpingstone removed this section claiming that no other aviation article had such a list and it seemed to him unprofessional. However, this is hardly a legitimate reason. So I have reverted the change. If one feel uncomfortable with it, let's him make it more tidy and professional-looking and add such a section to another articles, but IMHO deleting it goes against WP policies. Colchicum 15:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Dbinder removed it again motivating the decision by WP: NOT a directory. However, I disagree. The very essence of WP is internal linking of the content, and official WP policy as stated in WP: NOT a directory doesn't concern internal links. I would be glad if someone would made the list more tidy, but its content is important and notable. It is important to understand who manages the comany in order to understand its history. If other articles lack this, this is not a reason to remove such a thing. After all, in the very beginning WP didn't contain anything at all. Does this mean that we should blank all the Wikipedia? Obviously no. Colchicum 21:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that this article is also within the scope of WikiProject Russia, not only Airlines. What is not interesting to those interested in Airlines may well be important to other people. It is simply ridiculous to make this article fit templates of a single project so strictly Colchicum 21:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is the section, just BTW: Colchicum 21:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Colchicum is right. Articles about some of these people exist in Wikipedia. No one disputed their notability. Articles about other people may be provided in the future. However, it might be a good idea to organize such information as Table. Biophys 23:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the airline project. If it was an article about McDonalds I would have done the same thing. Furthermore, WP:NOT#DIR certainly does apply to internal links; there is nothing there that says otherwise. The key executives and chairman should be listed in the infobox, the rest can easily be obtained from the airline's website. This is how almost every article I've seen about any corporation is set up, not just airlines. DB (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If several of these people have articles, create an Aeroflot category and put them in there. DB (talk) 04:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that could be a good solution to make such category and reduce the number of listed people, especially in the Executive Management. I agree that Wikipedia is not a phone book directory. Certainly, it is not. But it is exactly for that reason the internal Wikipedia links can not be treated as a phone directory. Many Wikipedia articles include very long lists of internal links. Look for example, List of alleged secret agents.Biophys 07:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

So, Colchicum could create a separate article called Aeroflot management list and make a list indicating names, positions, and whatever about these people. Then, this Aeroflot article would be more readable. Biophys 20:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

***

Board of Directors elected at the Annual General Meeting of shareholders in 2006: Viktor Ivanov(Chairman, Deputy Head of Russia's Presidential Staff for personnel, Aide to President Vladimir Putin), Vladimir Antonov (First Deputy Director General), Anatoly Danilitsky (CEO National Reserves Corporation), Leonid Dushatin (First Deputy CEO National Reserve Corporation), Mikhail Kopeykin (Deputy Chief of the Staff of Russia's Government), Gleb Nikitin (Chief of the Commercial Organizations Property Department of Rosimushchestvo), Valery Okulov (Director General), Alexander Tikhonov (Director of Russia's Ministry of Transport Department for Structural Reformation), Vladimir Shablin (Senior Vice-President of National Reserve Bank), Andrey Sharonov (Deputy Minister for Economic Development and Trade), Alexander Urchik (Chief of the Rosaviation agency). [3]

Executive Management (as of January 2007): Valery Okulov (Director General), Vladimir Antonov (First Deputy Director General for Production), Vasily Avilov (Head of Administration), Alexey Sidorov (Commercial Director), Yuri Belykh (Technical Director), Nikolai Bosykh (Aircraft Maintenance Center Director), Konstantin Bushlanov (HR Department Head), Boris Eliseev (Deputy Director General, Head of Legal Department), Vladimir Gerasimov (Deputy Director General for Logistics), Igor Desyatnichenko (Deputy Director General for Routes and Freight Carriages Control), Kirill Budaev (Deputy Director general for Strategic and Corporate Development), Sergei Kiryushin (Deputy Director General, head of the Department for Information Technologies and Communications), Alexander Koldunov (Deputy Director General, Head of Flight Safety Department), Lev Koshlyakov (Deputy Director General , head of Public Relations Department), Mikhail Poluboyarinov (Deputy Director General for Finance and Planning), Vladimir Smirnov (Deputy Director General, Director of the Land Carriages Support Center), Stanislav Tulsky (Deputy Director General for Flight Management, Flight Complex Director), Andrei Trusov (Chief Accountant), Anatoly Volymerets (Head of Ilyushin Il-96/Il-86 flight team of Flight Operations Center). [4]

Planes layout

How everyone knows, the layout of Aeroflot planes (specially Tupolev and Ilyushin) is different to the layout of (West-) Europe airlines. I´ll know more about it in July so what do you think about a new section (title: the special plane layout of Aeroflot) Dagadt

There is no specific Aeroflot layout so no new section is necessary. If you can get a ride on one of the Tupolevs, enjoy it whille you can - these birds are being phased out --apoivre 21:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Il-96 order

I'm pretty sure that their order for 6 il-96-300 was converted to il-96-400. The article implies that they're not the same order wich gives a total of 12 planes on order. Can anyone verify this? --RIP-Acer 02:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Largest airline in the world

I removed this bit from the intro section because: A; it was unsourced, and B; there was no metric given for "largest" airline - did the line mean by airfleet, number of passengers, number of flights, what? If anybody has numbers to back up the largest airline claim, absolutely put them back in the intro. I just don't like unsourced, non-specific claims in the first couple paragraphs.

Aeroflot was the world's largest airline in all 'metrics' - number of aircraft (10,000++), number of passengers (100 million+ per year), number of flights, RPKs, etc, etc, etc. It is best to put {{Fact}} tags instead of simply removing, to give people the op to credit sources. --Russavia 15:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It has been almost one month now, and the unsourced tag has remained. Kindly find the relevant sources, before the claim gets removed.--Huaiwei 13:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The AskThePilot reference meant to support this claim is not satisfactory. This is an American commercial pilot telling late night stories. The fact that he is pilot is hardly enough reason to cite his book as an encylcopedic source. 82.141.158.14 (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You want sources that aeroflot was largest:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE5DE1538F930A25753C1A966958260 and look at the date of the article. You want encyclopedic? How about Brittanica. It makes the claim. Is Brittanica good enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.46.37 (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

How about Here

• page 94 Metamophasis in "Aeroflot: An Airline and its Aircraft," Paladwr Press, Oct 1992 by R.E.G. Davies, (Curator of Air Transport at the Smithsonian), ISBN-10: 0962648310, ISBN-13: 978-0962648311 and

• http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field%28DOCID+su0388%29 LOC Soviet Union Country Study--Degen Earthfast (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Soviet era

Can somebody write down the routes and fleet during soviet era? Aeroflot was the largest existing airline ever so it is necessary! Dagadt

• Hello! Yes, I can help you and I have already tried - created the Article "Terminated destinations". I'm still improving it, collecting facts, verificating and so on. Please, let me know what kind of information do you need... As for comments of Russavia, you can easy miss them... Regards, --Dimitree 20:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs)

Impossible to do as almost every village in the USSR had service from Aeroflot. The list would be as long as Pi written out to a million decimal places. --Russavia 16:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Routes

Hi! I believe it would be nice to know what for aircrafts operates which routes!

• This is unencyclopaedic information, as operational requirements can see an aircraft being subbed for another. If you need to know such info, the airline website is the place to visit --Russavia 16:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Great Website

I think it should be noted that Aeroflot's website (at least, the English version of it- I assume the Russian version is more or less identical apart from the language difference) incorporates several features that are unusual, such as pictures of the in-flight meals, songs about the airline, and a detailed list of the available in-flight music channels. It seems to me that this level of attention to detail regarding non-schedule related matters on an airline's website is quite unique and should be mentioned in this article. If anyone agrees with this I'd be happy to add in the content myself. (Note: This comment is from User:Hiram J. Hackenbacker (i.e. me), but I'm not logged in at the moment for security reasons.) 128.100.112.247 18:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Incidents

Why is this the only airline with no incidents / accidents section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.240.131 (talk • contribs)

Probably because it is called Incidents and accidents ! MilborneOne 21:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps it would be long enough for an article all to itself?--Huaiwei 13:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - there was no Incidents and accidents section when I made the initial post. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.159.240.131 (talk) 17:38, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Aeroflot destinations list

I have merged Aeroflot destinations back into the main Aeroflot article and have reformatted it as a collapsable table. I have also removed Former destinations as it would be near on impossible to achieve a complete, verifiable list (no list should be left incomplete), due to the sheer number of destinations which Aeroflot used to fly to, particularly with the Antonov An-2 to many Urban-type settlements throughout the former Soviet Union. Prose will be included in this section in the very near future to explain former destinations of the airline (both Soviet and Russian). --Russavia 18:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think doing away with the Aerflot destinations article was a bad idea, please reinstate it.(116.71.46.210 19:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC))

It doesn't matter if there are destinations that we cannot source. We just take the destinations that we *can* source. IMO, this whole "we can't source destinations" logic had a major flaw. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability there are several destinations that we ought to include that we CAN source. All we need to do is exclude listing unsourced destinations and list destinations that can be sourced.

For instance, I have Seattle sourced. It's easy. A removal is unjustified. On the other hand, if someone dumps a list without sources, well, of course that list goes. Also I added "post-1992" because I understand the definition of Aeroflot varies. Therefore I added "1992" to distinguish the modern Aeroflot from the Aeroflot conglomerate of the older years. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Aeroflot ties to SVR

I came across some interesting facts of Aeroflot in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Service_%28Russia%29 and I think it would be good to mention it here as well. Turbofisk (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Fleet?

An aeroflot boeing 737 crashed last night, but it doesnt list it under their fleet. Any idea why? --Kraftlos (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it is in the fleet of Aeroflot-Nord, a subsidiary. --Tovarishch Komissar ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 16:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Aeroflot#Other functions of Aeroflot

It looks like this section was added by an 'anti-russian' editor. I therefore do not trust that the contents are npov. Quantpole (talk) 08:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Anti Russian Editor? How so? It states what Aeroflot besides fly passengers and cargo. What is so anti-Russian about that?--71.162.142.154 (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The material is very controversial; Controversial information should be in the "Controversies" paragraph, but it is strongly suggested by Wikipedia that controversies are not written in articles. The "Other functions of Aeroflot" paragraph was deleted.--Tserg (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Controversy" is something that became a matter of dispute. If this was ever disputed, please provide supporting sources. This is sourced to several books per WP:RS. Besides, you called these claims "facts" in your edit summary. So, you know, just as me, that information was correct. As about the comment by Quantpole, no, I am not an "anti-Russian" editor. I am Russian editor.Biophys (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• There is not any requirement to keep controversies out of articles. There is a requirement that the controversial facts are well sourced. I have placed it at the bottom of the article. I have also separated the paragraph detailing other stuff that the company makes.

If you want to discuss the reliability of the sources then that's a different matter. I see that one of the authors Alexander Kouzminov was "an intelligence operative in the 1980s and early 1990s for the KGB and its successor" [5], the other is a controversial historian called Viktor Suvorov that has written books about Russian war and spionage, and the other is a guy called Alexander Goldfarb (microbiologist) who worked with Litvinenko (that guy who was poisoned) and made a book with his widow about this death. They seem to be either experts or people very knowledgeable in the subject because they have studied it or because they have been directly involved in it. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Enric Naval, your link to blog http://calitreview.com/62, in support of your claims that Alexander Kouzminov is an expert, is not reliable source. This website is being run on Six Apart software, which is a blog software company. Vlad fedorov (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the "Controversies" paragraph, so it is more neutral now. However, please note, that even while Suvorov is a historian, the "Aquarium" is an espionage novel, and it can be hardly approved as an official information source, though I haven't deleted this reference. --Tserg (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again, controversy is something that was disputed. This is non-controversial information that was never disputed. Unless you provide at least one source disputing those claims, this is not a controversy.Biophys (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The info on KGB functions of Aeroflot is not notable and is contraversial, at least in fact that one author attributes services to SVR and another to KGB. Airlines in America also were performing services for CIA and FBI, although no info in these articles is provided on their cooperation, simply because it is not notable. Apart from that, the authors you mention, are very contraversial authors, which are not historians and recognized experts in such questions. Many of their claims are not supported with evidence and are disputed. Insertion of contraversial and not-notable info to the lead of the article, making separate sections and removing POV tags from them is POV'ing the article. This is what you make, Biophys. Please, reach consensus. Vlad fedorov (talk) 04:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Just one quick note: that controversy is not notable enough for the lead. It hasn't affected enough the company's history to justify inclusion in the lead. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Biophys, once again, a novel(Aquarium) may not be disputed, because it is a novel, not an official material. Please, find at least not Russian official material. ( I'm a native Russian language speaker, by the way)--Tserg (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Aeroflot affair

The information on KGB money laundering inserted by Biophys is POV, because in Russia Aeroflot affair was and is connected with money laundering by Boris Berezovsky, who was one of the main Aeroflot shareholders. The article on Nikolai Glushkov in English WP is based solely on one source - book of the Goldfarb, who was long standing "employee" of Boris Berezovsky, those who are interested to learn more about money laundering by Boris Berezovsky (NPOV) are invite to Russian WP article [[6]]. Vlad fedorov (talk) 04:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

More information that contradicts to Biophys Goldfarb sources here http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=457209, an article by neutral newspaper. Vlad fedorov (talk) 04:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

So, what should we do with this KGB paragraph? No "softer" edits can be made here. --Tserg (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia you refer to is not WP:RS. Please do not do this.Biophys (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Biophys, I am referring not to Wikipedia, but to the sourcs cited there and to the mainstream opinion contained there. Please stop that useless wikilawyering. You asked to provide sources that contradict to yours? Well I've done it. 91.149.190.145 (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like, he was answering to my edit: I'm not going to discuss this paragraph for my whole life, so I'm just commenting your (to Biophys) latest quote: If you are really a Russian editor, you should now, that "РИА Новости" is an official information organization, which can be referenced to (I've changed a reference) --Tserg (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC).

To Novicas: This CIA expert did not tell a single word with regard to very specific statements by Kouzminov about program Volna and Aeroflot pilots transporting the specimens: [7]. Biophys (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Сode-share partners of Aeroflot

You have deleted official code-share partners of Aeroflot: AI, CX, CU, IR and RO, inspite of the fact that they are indicated as those on official web-site of Aeroflot [8] and without any VALID source just saying: "Aeroflot do NOT codeshare with AI, CX, Cu, IR or RO" [9]. Whoud you explain your logic, please. Thanx. --Dimitree (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Aeroflot do not codeshare with those airlines. Only the reverse is true, as is evident from the very same link (ie: Iran Air, Tarom etc place their codes on Aeroflot-operated flights; SU do not place their codes on RO flights). If you bothered to actually read that page and familarise yourself with the WP:Aviation guidelines, instead of screaming Comrade this and Kondoleeza that, you would know that there is a difference between the two. And you would know what is listed and what isn't. Jasepl (talk) 04:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, really? SU does not place codes on flights of a third company? It is a code-share according to Mr. Kondoleeza Rice? Fancy! Look here [10], clever Yankee, and find if you can SU/CX, SU/AI and other code-share flights. A little hint: they are SU 595/CX 9240, SU 535/AI 6535 and others. --Dimitree (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Jasepl, provide a link to where is said that Aeroflot does not codeshare with AI, CX, AY, CZ, CU, RO, IR or any other airlines which are indicated as code-share partners of Aeroflot on its web-site [11]. --Dimitree (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

OK I have rewritten the codeshare list into sections as in the source to make it clearer what is going on, thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --Dimitree (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Much better. I like this format! Snoozlepet (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Head office

Some details about the former locations of the head office:

• "Контакты." of 22 January 2007 said "Юридический адрес компании: 125167, Москва, Ленинградский проспект, д.37, корп.9 ."

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Aeroflot/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I have assessed this article as Start-class and identified the following areas for improvement: The article would benefit from copyediting The article needs to be written in an enyclopedic tone The article is not comprehensive and needs expansion The article needs inline citations The article needs cleaning up The article needs additional references Russavia 22:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Undue and POV/BLP information removed from the article

I have removed information from the article, as per some previous discussions.

Articles are supposed to give an overview of a subject, and the information in relation to the KGB, as presented, is WP:UNDUE for the article. Articles are supposed to give an overview of the subject, not delve into every controversy. I have dozens of books, magazines, journals, etc on Aeroflot, both in English and Russian (and a few in couple of other languages), and they are benchmarks for information on Aeroflot. Whilst operations for the Soviet military and KGB are mentioned, they do so albeit briefly.

Suvorov's claims are also WP:UNDUE, and are going to require some damn good extraordinary sources. As per WP:UNDUE

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

The reasons extraordinary sources are required (and even then the information doesn't belong in this article) are:

1. If these allegedly drugged and unconscious people were forcibly repatriated to the USSR by Aeroflot, then they would have to check-in at the airport, go through immigration, customs, passport control, etc, etc. It was written in the article in such a way that this was a regular occurrence. KGB agents dragging drugged unconscious recalcitrant citizens through airports around the world, and onto civil flights, would have been something for the press to jump onto. This is especially true, given that Aeroflot flights were not restricted only to Soviet citizens, but they were often the only way for westerners to get into the Soviet Union, and the flights were used by diplomats, business people, tourists, etc. And this also includes flights from Warsaw Pact nations to the Soviet Union. This would be common knowledge, not some revelation by a disgruntled ex-spy.
2. If civilian flights weren't used, they would have been military flights. As all reliable sources on Aeroflot mention, many military aircraft were operated in Aeroflot livery, but they were operated by the military. The An-22 is but one example of this. Refer to User:Russavia/SU fleet for photographic and written evidence of this. This would then make them not Aeroflot, but military flights. This would have been the only way possible to do anything without public attention, and these would only have been possible from friendly nations.

The rest of Kuzminov's claims are very much WP:UNDUE. This may rate a mention in an ancillary article (as noted above), but in this article it is a minor viewpoint, and that is noted above.

Now, in relation to Berezovsky. And this has been discussed before as well. As noted at Talk:Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)#Embezzlement_and_whitewashing_of_this_article the embezzlement of funds by Berezovsky and associates from Aeroflot is a byline to this article, only because it is not a major event in all that is written about Aeroflot. But it is a major event in the biography of Berezovsky, who fled Russia after the embezzlement came to notice, he was charged, tried in absentsia, and has a sentence to serve. But the problem with the information presented is that it is one-sided advocacy (propaganda) written by Alex Goldfarb, who is a close Berezovsky associate, and Marina Litvinenko (the wife of Alexander), in a book all but published and paid for by Berezovsky. As it is overly COI/self-serving material that was entered, some more reliable sources are required, and it needs to present an NPOV account of the affair, not one-side POV propaganda.

It omits facts that the companies set up by Glushkov and Berezovsky relied on a web of shady and offshore accounts and companies in places like Panama, etc. It certainly wasn't an above board operation as has been presented. Try getting sources which are reliable. Propaganda is not a reliable source. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 10:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This edit is an open violation of your interaction ban. Please self-revert. This information is obviously relevant to the subject and sourced to several books (secondary RS). This also has nothing to do with BLP. I would rather not discuss this with you in more detail, because you are under interaction ban with me. Thanks. Biophys (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion on the information removed by Russavia appears to be more like a political controversy rather than an encyclopedic part of the carrier's history. Perhaps this should be discussed in much detail, but my opinion is that this removed paragraph shouldn't be reinstated. As a reader, I'm really not interested in being informed such political things when I'm into an airline article looking for proper information on the airline itself. That said, I'll support the inclusion of that information in a new article, if there's not an article that already covers the topic. By contrast, the frequent flyer programme section should be available to readers again, considering that the airline is a member of an airline alliance, and that the alliance article does not provide much detail on each of the frequent flyer programmes for the constituent members.--Jetstreamer (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not an ordinary airline company. Just as many other Soviet/Russian state-owned organizations, it was used for multiple purposes, even as a front organization (per multiple secondary RS). For example, if certain Soviet scientific academic institutions were used as a cover of Soviet biological weapons program (per sources), this must be noted in articles about such institutions per NPOV. Biophys (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me Jetstreamer, I was in the middle of incorporating it into another section, when other issues arose. I'll reinstate it for now. Good thing you mentioned the alliance article -- perhaps this is where all of the FFP information of constituent airlines can go, seeing as they are all so similar within alliances. It's in relation to my comments on WP:AIRLINES talk page, which I think you commented on. What do you think about that? Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 13:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Does it mean that you are not going to self-revert and stand by your revert of my edit? Biophys (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all, this single discussion should be split, as we are talking about two very different matters, and it is really becoming a hydrid one! Regarding the political framework Aeroflot was or not involved in, I repeat I'll support the creation of a new article on this particular topic (letting the bloodbuster to begin among the ones that may be involved in its edition; I'll step aside). A tentative name could be “Controversies around Aeroflot” or so. It would be interesting, though, and will also give room to insert another kind of information on the proper running of an airline. On the (very) other hand, the SkyTeam article of course should include all the stuff regarding the frequent flyer programme of its members. Nevertheless, I think we should focus on getting some articles ready for the time being (at least I'll do so), before beginning to make improvements to another ones. Despite I don't have much time due to my “non-Wiki life”, I recently got involved in editing Uzbekistan Airways just after I found an IP vandal (the same who yesterday vandalised the Aeroflot page) added fictitious airliners to both its current and retired fleet.--Jetstreamer (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If you are doing stuff on HY, you may want to check Andrew Dyubin's template on commons at the link I have given ; he has some great pics of the aircraft - others have nice pics too if you need them. As to creating Controversies on Aeroflot, it would be taken to WP:AFD as it would be a dumping ground for advocacy, using really bad sources, such as those I presented above. I'll defer to Igny's comments below, which mirror mine above, in relation to creating a "controversy" article. Anyway, if you need pics of HY, go get 'em and upload. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 15:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is the litmus test. An article on IBM says about IBM's collaboration with Nazi here the following

In 1937, IBM's tabulating equipment enabled organizations to process unprecedented amounts of data, its clients including the U.S. Government, during its first effort to maintain the employment records for 26 million people pursuant to the Social Security Act,[20] and the Third Reich[21], largely through the German subsidiary Dehomag. Also in 1937, the company president met with Adolf Hitler, and discussed issues on the supply of equipment, and in 1941 were made ​​leasing supplies to camps to accommodate the prisoners.

Note the NPOV wording, nothing about number of killed Jews due to IBM's efforts or other such things. On the other hand, the book IBM and the Holocaust has all the details on this controversy. So there is a simple suggestion. If there is an article on evil wrongdoings of KGB and FSB, you can add the properly sourced claims on Aeroflot's contributions if it is any relevant there. Here all you can say is that Aeroflot was used by the various government offices (including KGB and FSB) for multiple government business related purposes. Note that I myself did not check the validity of the claims here, I am just proposing to remove the irrelevant material from here and add it where it is more relevant. (Igny (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC))

Speaking as a potential passenger, I would be very much interested to learn if I am transported together with improperly packaged deadly pathogens. So yes, this is an important information, and yes, it belongs to this article. How reliable this is? That was published in a printed book by an expert (and he said he picked up the pathogens from the planes himself) and never disputed in other sources to my knowledge (yes, these programs are very much active today). Biophys (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Your personal feelings aside, it is impossible to prove that this particular was never disputed anywhere. It is relatively easy for you to prove whether such claims have been accepted and verified independently. As our previous disputes showed we have very much different views on who is and who is not an expert. Anyway, as my case with IBM demonstrated there is a very neutral way to deal with any particular controversy, and that is not to add irrelevant material everywhere you feel it belongs to. (Igny (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC))

Re and he said he picked up the pathogens from the planes himself. Sorry, it is not an independent verification. (Igny (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC))

It's like reading the Litvinenko article. As is written there, the thing with conspiracy theories is that the more outlandish the claim, the harder it is to disprove. Anyway, as a passenger who is interested in Aeroflot, most passengers would want to know if the service is like what they have heard about (surly and abrasive as in Soviet times), and whether the airline is really as unsafe as what they have heard. In the rewrite I have been working on, these issues will be discussed. Of course, there are always passengers who would want to know if they are going to get polonium poisoning by flying Aeroflot, due to a KGB agent being the chairman (ommitting of course he is also a politician and businessman), who has links to Putin, and we all know about Putin. Those types of passengers are called the WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE passenger, and frankly, they are better off flying another airline. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 15:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing, the poisoning while flying an Aeroflot plane is a real possibility. That is what had happened with Politkovskaya when she flied to Beslan: [12]. Biophys (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

So much fun. See [13] where Russavia solicited Igny's appearance here. Surprise, surprise, surprise. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we had enough time for everyone to respond. Let me just briefly summarize:

1. My edit was improperly reverted in a violation of an interaction ban.
2. So far, no one explained why quoted book/sources do not qualify as RS.
3. I do not see why sourced information about Aeroflot should not be included in this article. Frankly, if they helped military, why we can not also note that they helped intelligence operations.

So, if no one strongly objects, I would restore at least a part of the removed content. Biophys (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I really don't care if I am banned from interacting with you Biophys. Your addition was previously removed from the article by OTHER editors many months ago. Your addition to the article was merely you using the interaction ban against me as a weapon in order to lock me out of articles. An article, mind you, which is directly in my area of expertise. So take this as an utmost strong objection on my part.

I'll be damned if sword-wielding skeletons are going to continue destroy Wikipedia, and allow major contributors and experts on articles to be sidelined, by way of using arbitration decisions as a weapon against editors. Taken in with your recent stalking of me Biophys, I will wait with baited breathe your AE request.

Additionally, numerous editors above have rejected your edits, as per the logical reasoning given. You are not going to turn this article into a battleground Biophys. Numerous editors have objected to your edits on this article in relation to the issues you have injected into the article -- it is not just me. You should be posting suggested edits on the talk page so that they can be discussed by editors (including me), before placement in the article. This is part of WP:BRD - Bold, revert, discuss. So discuss your suggested changes here first please, so that ALL editors can provide their opinions on the matters you bring up.

The last thing, I know that people will say "I am an expert" on topics in which they edit, more often than not without qualification. I will happily provide the Arbitration Committee with confidential evidence of this in my case. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 06:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me just tell that this edit is absolutely within my areas of interests. It refers to an article about biological weapons created by me, and I am certainly interested in such subjects as GRU and KGB. I edited Aeroflot before, my edit is well sourced to books by experts, and it was about Aeroflot. Yes, I also did not like my editing restrictions. But rules must be respected. Otherwise, we have an anarchy. Other than that, I did not came here to be involved in battlegrounds and reporting other users. All I want is the improvement of content, and my edit in this article was clearly an improvement of content. Thanks, Biophys (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

So, here is my answer. (1) No, I am not going to AE right now. We have administrators. If they do not care, I do not care too. (2) Since you strongly object, then fine, keep let's keep it your way. I am not going revert or ask you to self-revert. But it does not mean that you or others should follow and revert my legitimate edits in other articles as you did in this article. Neither it means that I promise never edit this article (it relates to many subjects I edited, like Gluskov, Berezovsky, SVR affairs, etc.) Biophys (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Biophys, no-one has stalked your edits here. I was already here. As to it being an improvement of content, when I rewrite the rest of the article, I would remove it anyway, because of the same reasons that have already been clearly stated above. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 07:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

In this article I only mean your revert. As about other things, we both know what I mean [14]. This is simply to clarify what I mean, not to allege anything inappropriate by anyone at this time.Biophys (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You have clarified absolutely nothing, instead it appears you are making those very accusations, albeit by claiming that you are not making allegations. WTF. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 19:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, the removal of information was also more than qualified as violating WP:BLP, in terms of qualifying Viktor Ivanov as a high-ranking FSB official. Whilst this is true, its inclusion as presented violates BLP in that it insinuates that Ivanov's tenure as chairman of Aeroflot is related to his FSB role. His role in Aeroflot is not related to his role in the FSB. Ivanov's chairmanship is noted in the infobox -- to have it in such a section as was presented is a violation of BLP. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 19:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I can not continue this discussion, because you are under interaction ban with me, and this ban must be respected. In fact, you can not respond to my comments (please see here).Biophys (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• I now restored this material because user who objected inclusion was indefinitely banned long time ago. My very best wishes (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Russian Aeroflot articles

Hi, I've scoured through the Flight Global archives, and came up with the following sources for any interested in rewriting the "Recent developments" section. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 09:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
The Bullish Bear. 1992
All Change at Aeroflot. 1993
The Price of Change. 1994
Independence days. 1995
Fighting back. 1997

Interesting readings, like a window into past--93.159.240.160 (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Removed codes from the lede

I have removed the codes from the lede as it doesn't conform with WP:LEDE. The lede is supposed to summarise the rest of the article, and the lede should not introduce any information which isn't present later on in the article. For airline articles we have the infobox -- infoboxes are generally used for the placement of information which helps to identify subjects, and also to give important (and identifying) information, which for whatever reason may not be suitable for placement in the actual article. An analogous situation is infoboxes for cities -- these infoboxes include things such as area codes, post codes, etc, etc, but the articles generally don't mention them as these things don't make the subject notable -- but it is important information nonetheless. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 23:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Already posted a comment in your talk page regarding this. Will relocate this information, as it should support the one included in the infobox.--Jetstreamer (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

But this is the point of infoboxes. Not all information present in the infobox needs to be present in the article. Unfortunately, Help:Infobox basically says the exact opposite of how infoboxes are used across WP -- in fact, looking at it, going by standing practices on WP now, most featured articles would be demoted on this point alone. That guideline needs to be looked at I guess, but generally articles don't need such codes in the article, as they are usually introduced into the article in such a way that it isn't needed, because of the presence of the infobox. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 23:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

So you suggest to wipe that information out? I thought ALL the contents within the infobox should be stated somewhere in the article...--Jetstreamer (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I dont see any reason why the codes and callsign have to be in the article, nearly all of the airline articles have them just in the infobox. MilborneOne (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You two have just convinced me. I'm removing that information and only will keep the companion reference, which is used later in the article.--Jetstreamer (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

User:46.73.xxx.xxx

So far, I've reinstated the content supported by one of the references provided three times following removal by you using different IPs. Despite your edits go against WP:V and violates a policy by removing valid information supported by references included in the article, I'd like to know the reason for you to keep doing this. Which is the problem with mentioning that an aircraft is stored? This situation has been repeating in the last months. I could get from you not even a single word.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The same IP range stroke again. I've reverted their last set of edits and reinstated the previous version of the article. No sources provided for the changes. No comments received, as usual.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

1994 aeroflot flight 593

This was a pretty famous case about the pilot who let his son fly a plane resulting in an aircraft accident that killed everybody on boar, I see it has it's own page but surely for encyclopaedic purposes it's worth a mention here? Mrmalade (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Boeing 777-300ER Seating

The seating on the fleet table for the Boeing 777 should be changed from TBA to 30 Business 42 Comfort 324 Economy, according to the Aeroflot website. http://www.aeroflot.ru/cms/en/flight/plane_park — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humongous25 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

30/48/324. Done--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

АэрофЛот

Did you mean "АероФлот" (eg AirFleet)? Truth be told, I have never seen it stylized this (or any other) way, although it may mean nothing. 46.216.19.2 (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Boeing 777 picture

It says that an Aeroflot 777-200ER lands at Moscow in 2013 but then below it says that the 777-200ER was retired in 2005. Shouldn't it be changed to a 777-300ER landing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.5.64.200 (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done MilborneOne (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That was my fault.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Aeroflot's Boeing client code

Does anyone know why the Aeroflot's new B737 have the client code LJ instead of the old M0? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

It probably belongs to the leasing company/owner Rostechnology rather than Aeroflot. MilborneOne (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

OH! That's interesting. Didn't think about it. Good thinking, MilborneOne. :-) Two were delivered yesterday, btw. Maybe update the table putting 2 "in service"? Or not yet? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

About Il-96

IL-96 was decommissioned 30 March 2014. In March 2014 discontinued operations Il-96-300. The last flight of the flag of Aeroflot aircraft completed on March 30. (Excerpt from the Russian Wikipedia). Correct, please. --81.13.11.174 (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source for your claims?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Some of them:

http://www.ilyushin.org/en/press/media/gallery/194/

http://www.journal-aviation.com/actualites/26379-aeroflot-dit-adieu-a-ses-iliouchine-il-96

http://worldairlinenews.com/2014/03/31/aeroflot-retires-the-ilyushin-il-96-from-scheduled-operations/

http://atwonline.com/airframes/aeroflot-grounds-six-ilyushin-il-96s

http://www.aerotelegraph.com/aeroflot-legt-unbeliebte-iljuschin-il-96-still

http://www.planespotters.net/Production_List/search.php?manufacturer=Ilyushin&type=Il-96&fleet=3474&fleetStatus=5

http://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airline/SU#al_profile_tab_fleet

http://www.planespotters.net/Aviation_Photos/photo.show?id=505241

Fleet ch (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Make photo requests for other views of 10 Arbat Street?

On Google maps I found this view of 10 Arbat Street showing the Aeroflot logo on the top of the building. Should I make a request to a Russian Wikipedian to photograph the building from that angle?

There's also This angle showing a ground-level Aeroflot storefront (the entrance to the left reads "ДЕЛОВОЙ ЦЕНТР" which Google translate says is "business center" WhisperToMe (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I remember the article including an image of that yellow building but someone removed it.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This is the image in question.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored it WhisperToMe (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2014

Please see below edit, only two minor changes - Aeroflot now only have 2 Boeing 767 aircraft, not 3. They now no longer operate the Ilyushin 96, so this aircraft must be removed from the current fleet list.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.53.28 (talk • contribs)

 Partly done. According to the official information that supports the fleet table now, the airline has ten Boeing 777-300ERs (not eight), two Boeing 767-300ERs (not three), but the number of Ilyushin Il-96s is still six. WP:VNT applies--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2014

180.252.255.125 (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

fleet table?

some of the values in the table were not updated since 2013. is there a more updated information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.169.119 (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The fleet table is up to date. It is based on the official information provided by the airline.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Aeroflot parent company

This edit has been reverted as there cannot be two parent companies. Can you please be more careful when checking pendind edits.? Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• I accepted the change because what is there now is misleading. It operates as a joint partnership and if you dispute that then explain how the airline would operate without its 30,000+ employees of the AG Group? I also checked the Template:Infobox airline and see nothing that specifies that it be a single company. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Scalhotrod: The article includes sources stating the Russian government is the owner of 51% of the shares, they are not in the infobox per WP:INFOBOXREF. I'm perfectly aware of this because I was the one that added those sources. There's nothing more to say about Aeroflot's parent company.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

So then you are the Editor that created the confusion. There is only one other company involved, why are you against listing it? WP:INFOBOXREF backs my assertion that the AG Group should be included. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Scalhotrod: There exists only one parent company, which holds 50% plus one share. The rest are shareholders.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Where are you getting this definition of "parent company"? If you understood the terms you are using you would see that the Russian government is the shareholder and the AG Group actually runs things? The Russian government is not a company nor is it in the business of running airlines. If you don't understand these terms ("parent company", "shareholder"), it's OK to admit it. You seem knowledgeable on aircraft and airlines, but less so about business and companies. By the way, a "controlling interest" in a company is not necessarily "50% plus one share", that's a simple "majority ownership". --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Scalhotrod: Although somewhat dated, the following information appears in the reference titled ″Aeroflot profits up on regional airlines turnaround″, already in the article:

“ State-controlled Russian airline Aeroflot...

...According to its latest plans, the government aims to reduce its 51.17 percent stake in the airline to 25 percent plus one share.

”

I didn't invent anything. The article reflects what reliable sources say about the topic, in agreement with WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, Jet, so you don't actually understand what the term "parent company" means; and that's OK. I'm not arguing WP:RS with you, just trying to discuss how you are applying the content in the Infobox and show you that its not correct. No business analyst would refer to the Russian government as Aeroflot's "parent company". --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

My interpretations are out of discussion here. Official information [15] says the Russian Federation, through the Federal Agency for State Property Management, is the major shareholder (51.17%). I see nothing to discuss: the Russian Federation is the parent company. Maybe adding that the Federal Agency for State Property Management is Aeroflot's parent in the infobox will solve the issue. Nonetheless, it is under the umbrella of the Russian governement.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I get what you are referencing, but it would seem that you still misunderstand the term "parent company". The Russian Federation or government or however you want to refer to it is not a company or in the airline business. Its just the majority shareholder, its not a very complex concept, but there is a distinction. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Scalhotrod: Don't mention it. I'm more open-minded than it seems . Do you think that putting ″Federal Agency for State Property Management″ as the parent company in the infobox will solve the issue? If that's ok, we can solve this without third-party comments. BTW, the official reference I included above has newer information than the one currently used.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

As a company with shareholders it doesnt really have a "parent company", it does have a majority shareholder (the Federal Agency for State Property Management) but that is not the same as a parent. As a far as I can make out the Aeroflot Group is just another name for "JSC “Aeroflot”" so is not really a parent either just an alternate name. MilborneOne (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I am no where near as familiar with airline articles as you are, but in this particular case I would say that the "Parent company" slot be left empty. The Aeroflot Group (AG) is technically the parent company, but its just a holding company, a business structure on paper. It would not be misleading to have what I had added earlier, but leaving it blank is acceptable. On the other hand, the subsidiaries that have articles should list AG as their "parent company" since that supported by the sources. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that it should be left blank but from what I can see "JSC Aeroflot" and "Aeroflot Group" are the same the airline "Aeroflot" doesnt appear to be a seperate legal entity. I would agree it is a holding company for the subsidaries per http://www.aeroflot.com/cms/en/about/subsidiaries MilborneOne (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good, now we just have to figure out why the subsidiaries don't show up in the Infobox. I posted a message on the Talk page for the template. resolved, partly a browser issue on my end. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Also agree with the removal of the field. Issue solved. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Good subsequent edits as well, nicely done! --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)