Talk:Frontier Airlines/Archive 1

Split

I believe this should be split into an article about the 1994 Frontier Airlines and the 1950 Frontier Airlines -- they're two separate companies, and should have their own articles. --Cliffb 19:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I vote against a split, assuming the accuracy of the article's statement that the new company was created by executives of the old company. The only reason to split would be if there were no institutional connection between the old company and the new company. Based on what I read here, there's a strong connection, even if they are, in fact, two different companies.CoramVobis 20:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Given the fact that the old airline has a current presence since it was merged into CO, there is some logic to splitting these out. The two airlines have different categories and codes. Vegaswikian 05:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Another thing to add is that if we split the first frontier off it might stimulate some additions to it. Right now the article is kinda thin on the first frontier.—Cliffb 05:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Route systems

The pros and cons of hub-and-spoke vs linear route systems does not seem like useful information about Frontier Airlines, and it reads like a half-baked criticism and an uninspired rebuttal. Unless sources can be cited and some relevance to Frontier be shown, I propose reducing it down to just a mention that Frontier uses a hub-and-spoke system, with a brief appositive clarifying what that is. mjb 04:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Whatever is covered in an article like airline hub should be included via a link. No need to repeat the general information. If that article or the ones it links to need to be expanded then it should be done there so the information is available to any article that has a link. Unique material could go in either place based on what it is. Vegaswikian 05:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Employee Relations

I went ahead and deleted this section as it did not cite sources and was very close to libel. If you can prove the allegations against Frontier (which can be seen in the History) Re add it with sources cited. EnsRedShirt 13:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Focus Cities

Frontier does not even have the term "Focus City" in its annual report. It does mention that they are focusing on point to point opportunities. Since they service a vast majority out of DIA, the next possible city to be named a focus city is Cancun, which Frontier does not call a focus city, and only has seven destinations, including DIA. I am strongly against any city with less than five destinations being called a focus city, and I think any focus city should have at least ten destinations. This leaves Frontier with only the DIA hub. —Cliffb 23:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the Denver Post has recently released this statement regrading FFT's focus cities...Sox23 03:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Code Shares

Under the original set-up, Frontier JetExpress and the codeshare with Great Lakes were bundled together under the same heading, even though the two operations are completely seperate. I felt that each operation deserved its own subheading.

The Slash "/"

I cannot believe this. While fixing a reference link, I added a trailing slash to another link. Then two people go through the bother of editing the article for the sole purpose of removing the slash. Removed to save bandwidth? Are you serious? To save a single character in the article, you added how many characters to the edit history? Not to mention the bandwidth you soaked up in editing the page. Jeez. But let's continue delving into the absurd. Your browser normalizes "omitted slash" URIs to include the trailing slash per RFC3986 (you will find "http://www.frontierairlines.com/" listed in your cache). When you later tell it to go to "http://www.frontierairlines.com" again, it takes extra compute cycles to determine that those two strings, though different, are equivalent (RFC3986 6.2.3). My oh my - all the lost productivity!
In disbelief that someone would edit just to remove the slash, I made an edit just to put it back. Don't worry. I won't do so again. But I will do this! //////// Zubdub 05:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Grow up Sox23 21:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Roger that, sox23. Lacking a sound argument, hurl an insult. Zubdub 04:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You are arguing over the removal of a stupid "/"! Don't you have better things to do?! Sox23 21:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It takes at least two to argue, you know. No, apparently I don't have anything better to do. Just like you apparently had nothing better to do than to remove the slash. I'm done now. Zubdub 02:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

ok Sox23 03:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. While I can kinda agree that the additional edit just to remove the slash was a bit much, but reverting the removal of the slash just was just as crazy if not more so in my book. Seriously, if you're that protective of your edits I think you should review the following text that we see all the time: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Remember don't sweat the small stuff. It goes to the same place, so why make a big deal of it? —Cliffb 23:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

True, reverting the removal of the slash was rather silly. I was just so stunned that someone bothered to edit just to remove it, that I figured "OK. I'll play." In fact, I notice that you made two separate edits that consisted of removing a single slash. That comment about not being so protective of one's edits cuts both ways you know. Zubdub 04:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Play? Is this a game? Seriously, is this really worth the time to comment and revert? If you're in need of something to do I have a paper that I could use some help on. In editing picked the "best" edit between two different editors, IMHO, and went for consistency. —Cliffb 07:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Were you in need of something to do when you made two separate edits for the sole purpose of removing a slash? Apparently. It's plain and simple - the trailing slash annoys you and "grown up" sox23, and the omitted slash annoys me. Period. I added the slash as part of a separate edit (making the link appear as people see it in their browser, by the way), then since it annoyed sox23, he had to remove it. I clicked a couple times with the mouse and reverted. Then you made your two crucial edits. Bandwidth? Yeah, right. I look forward to seeing more edits from you saving single-byte download speeds. Sheesh. Zubdub 16:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You guys might want to read this, since it would also apply to trivial edits such as this. The bandwidth argument is absurd. It takes a lot more "effort" for the servers to add/remove the slash than to just leave it as is. If you want to add or remove it, incorporate it into another edit. Furthermore, this pointless conversation takes a lot more bandwidth than a single slash would. DB (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

DB thank you for enlightening me. I'm going to take that knowledge to use Wikipedia's resources more efficiently. Zubdub, I'm done arguing with you. Although I will note for anyone who is following this that I do not appreciate your aggressive tone. Cooperation, not conflict is the better way around this. —Cliffb 04:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Cliffb, I did get more worked up than I should have. But I felt as though I had blundered into another Wikipedia "fiefdom". They're all over the place here. Articles that one or more people start to feel possessive about as if they own it. That's good to a point, because they quickly deal with vandals and spammers. But blunder into one as a newcomer to a particular article and you're quickly made to feel as if your well-intended contributions aren't welcome. So when I made a good-faith edit that also included adding the infamous slash, I saw the slash immediately removed. I got irritated by such a trivial edit and reverted it, then saw the slash once again removed. I thought "OK, I've blundered into another fiefdom where one doesn't dare put a slash at the end of a URI."

I made another good-faith effort and removed the redundant link to Frontier's web site. Again, my edit was quickly reverted, citing Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines as the law of the land. The thing is, that project page also says "Unnecessary repeating of this information [referring to information in the infobox] in the body of the article is discouraged." and then needlessly repeats the website link way down at the bottom of the page. (I would argue it is already much more visible where it is in the infobox.) The project page also says there should be no links to opinion web sites (POV certainly not being encyclopedic) and yet there is clearly a link to an opinion web site.

So I will make all concerned happy and just take this page off my watch list. Take care. Zubdub 22:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Advertising and Livery

Good start there, I have been meaning to add an advertising section to the article.. It just needs to be expanded like who is the ad group behind it, when it started, different specials, like Send Flip to Mexico, and the current Denver's favorite Animal.. EnsRedShirt 07:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It better be Hector. He makes squishy noises with his cheeks. Zzz345zzZ 08:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Routes to Memphis

Do the routes to Memphis from more than just Denver (such as Orlando and Las Vegas) qualify it as a focus city? Alex 01:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say that MEM would not be considered a focus city because FFT only has 4 daily departures from the airport (2 to DEN & 1 each to LAS & MCO) - I don't think MEM is FFT's new focus city Sox23 01:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems they are trying to diversify locations outside of Denver, California, & Mexico. Memphis is considerably different from those markets, and Southwest (the dominant carrier in LAS) doesn't serve MEM (yet). --BetaCentauri 20:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

citation needed tag fixed

I added reference to fix a "citation needed" problem about the old Frontier executives starting this Frontier. I did not tag the problem nor did I write the statement that was questioned. Archtrain 15:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Separating out Lynx and Republic

I've made some initial passes at separating out information from Lynx and Republic. They're their own airlines and only in Frontier's article are the associated regionals included as they were here. I don't think this is done, but it gets a little trickier from here.. —Cliffb (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Tags and Jet Express

This page has several un-attended to tags that are over a year old and NEED TO BE DEALT WITH and I'm not sure that the Republic service was called JetExpress anymore. I don't think you'd find that phrase on their website anymore or their regional jets if you looked. Perhaps separate Republic and JetExpress. QualityControl3533 (talk) 06:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

A320 and Sally

on the website ([1]) it says that they have 2 A320s and Sally the mustang is an A319 not A320 Even check! Kell65 (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

MKE

MKE is not a hub of any kind for Frontier Airlines. They basically operate flights for Midwest Airlines (MKE is a hub for YX). Please provide sources stating that MKE is indeed a secondary hub. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 08:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

MKE and MCI / OMA?

MKE and MCI are in fact hubs for Frontier Airlines. This was the case even before parent company Republic Airways Holdings announced that it would be merging the Midwest Airlines and Frontier Airlines brands and consolidating operations for the two carriers. Both carriers have a codeshare arrangement that allows passengers of either airline to make connecting flights at any of the company's hubs in Denver, Milwaukee and Kansas City while traveling on a single ticket. In inflight material, it shows Omaha as a hub as well. It shows DEN, MKE, OMA and MCI airport maps as well 65.30.27.210 (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Change in Terminology in the Fleet table

Currently one of the columns of the Fleet table reads "Blended Winglets". None of the aircraft in Frontier's fleet have blended winglets. Blended winglets are the name of Boeing/Aviation Partners winglet product for most notably the Boeing 737/757/767 aircraft and some other non-airliner aircraft, none of which have been for the Airbus or Embrear aircraft. I will try and edit tonight or sometime soon if no one else does to read "Wingtip Devices" and then either "None", "Wingtip Fence", "Winglets" which is a more accurate term given that Airbus aircraft (with the exception of 2 A320s) do not have winglets.

The Airbus A32X aircraft have Wingtip Fences while the Embrears contain regular Winglets (not Blended Winglets). If I need to clarify further what the differences are then I can try to go into further detail. (Narrow-body Fan12 (talk) 04:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC))

Provided no one has issue with this the new table would look like this

Frontier Airlines fleet

Aircraft	Total	Passengers	Wingtip Devices	Notes
Airbus A318-100	8	120	Wingtip Fence	Launch customer In July, 2003, Frontier became first airline to operate the A318.
Airbus A319-100	38	136	Wingtip Fence	5 operating Midwest Airlines flights.
Airbus A320-200	5 (7 orders)	162	Wingtip Fence	N/A
Embraer 190	6	99	Winglet	Operated by Republic Airlines
Embraer 170	4	76	Winglet	Operated by Republic Airlines
Bombardier Dash 8 Q400	5	74	None	Operated by Lynx Aviation

Narrow-body Fan12 (talk) 04:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Due to lack of responce I take it that this change isn't going to be very controversial, now changed.

Narrow-body Fan12 (talk) 06:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

737-300 Only is not true

THe current page says that frontier only operated a 737-300 only fleet when it started but it actually was intially a 200 and 300 series fleet. heres a picture search at Airliners.net for all 200 series 737's for Frontier.

http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircraft_genericsearch=%3D%22boeing+737-200+%28t-43%29%22&airlinesearch=%3A%28%22frontier+airlines%22+OR+%22%28frontier+airlines%29%22%29&countrysearch=&specialsearch=&daterange=&keywords=&range=&sort_order=photo_id+desc&page_limit=120&thumbnails= Narrow-body Fan12 (talk) 06:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Headquarters.

Frontier Airlines lists Indianapolis & Denver for Headquarters. All of there press releases state Denver but there website lists Indy.

This link from the Denver Business Journal states there headquarters as Denver Colorado. I Would list both Indy & Denver as HQ in the article. http://www.netprospex.com/company/executives/Frontier-Airlines?companyID=1640365 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coloradoweatherdude (talk • contribs) 07:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The Denver Business Journal reported on Aug 9, 2010 that Frontier Airlines has extend it's lease on It's Denver Headquarters through 2020, and that Customer Service, Reservations, in-flight administration, training, marketing, revenue management & scheduling and planning teams will be based at the HQ. http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2010/08/09/daily1.html?ana=e_du_pap

• Yet, the official website says that Denver is a local office, not an HQ. The HQ is in Indianapolis. The second article you listed said "even though the top executives running the carrier are in Indianapolis." - By definition the HQ is where the top executives are located. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• And Frontier_Airlines#Denver_local_office now states everything. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• The problem with Netprospex is that's likely outdated. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

We have a new user who has apparently switched to using an IP account who insists on making changes that don't follow the MoS. So I have blocked editing to new and anon editors for two weeks. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

He apparently is also autoconfirmed. I have reverted the vandalism again. WaltBren (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I added an additional warning for vandalism, so if this continues, the account will be blocked. Personally using the IP as a sock should have been a reason to block, but we need to assume good faith. “”Vegaswikian (talk) 01:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE TAG

Can we remove the Update tag from this article yet or not? It seems to me that everything looks correct. Thoughts??

coloradoweatherdude —Preceding undated comment added 06:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC).

Denver Local Office

I don't know where anyone got the idea that Frontier was based in Indianapolis. Their corporate headquarters is in Denver. The address for this office is Frontier Center One 7001 Tower Rd Denver, CO 80249. It says so on their web site. If you will notice on their route map, Denver is where all of their flights originate with their second biggest hub being Milwaukee. Only two destinations are served out of Indianapolis. This is NOT their base headquarters. Never has been. Never will be.02:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightdc4 (talk • contribs)

At the time you wrote this it was FULLY IN INDY, it has moved to Denver as the spin-off continues. Kairportflier (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merger

I propose merging Frontier Airlines fleet into this article. This article is not that long, and adding in the fleet info from that article would definitely not overwhelm this article, per WP:MERGE. I know that there are fleet sub-articles such as Singapore Airlines fleet, Delta Air Lines fleet, Emirates fleet but those articles are all longer than this one. So, I proposed that the fleet article be merged into this one. —Compdude¹²³ 03:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Kairportflier (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposed merge. The article from late April was a lot longer than what you see now. It was basically as detailed as the Emirates and Singapore fleet articles. The problem is that most of it got deleted for lack of citations, which in itself is odd, as many of the details were externally referenced (as to not leave a long list of endnote citations at the bottom). Looking back on the history, it looks like this happened on April 30th...then the proposed merge came in on May 6th, without any regard to the fact that the article had a lot more information in the past. The information that got deleted is indeed able to be cited...someone just needs to do it. Additionally, the larger problem is that if the "longer and more complete" version of the Frontier Airlines fleet article was to be merged with the main Frontier Airlines article, it'd make it too long. This "shortened" version of the fleet article...which is missing a lot of relevant info because it was deleted...could merge in just fine, but then there will be a major loss of information. Jdubman (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The stuff that got deleted was a long list of the airline's tail art (which is unique for every aircraft). This looks a lot like fancruft and was unencyclopedic. In my opinion the removal of all that info was definitely justified. —Compdude¹²³ 04:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Based on that precedent, the unreferenced route information under the fleet tables on the Malaysia Airlines fleet and the Singapore Airlines fleet pages along with the notes about special liveries on the Southwest Airlines and Delta Air Lines fleet pages are fancruft as well. There is plenty more "encyclopedic" information that can be added to the Frontier Airlines fleet page including stuff about its historical fleet, future fleet plans. Enough so that it would warrant another page - the main Frontier Airlines page is supposed to be an overview, and the additional page is for additional info if someone wants to learn more...just like with any other Wikipedia page and sub-pages. Lastly, there has already been a debate on whether to keep the page or not, and cases were made to keep the page (see the Frontier Airlines fleet talk page). Jdubman (talk) 02:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree that the current fleet article should be merged into this one, the long list of individual aircraft was not encyclopedic and was not needed. Plenty of airline fan sites that cover this sort of information which is not encyclopedic. The Singapore Airlines fleet is a bad example and most of it should be deleted but in the past it had a lot WP:OWN issues and argued that they were special and did not need to conform but now a few years down the line that is probably due for a prune or a deletion discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Jdubman, That is not fair because for one, Southwest's is completely sourced by one source and is much more organized and necessary then what you are mentioning. Kairportflier (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of merging the articles. Kairportflier (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

recent "undo" of the controversies section

I recently added a Controversies section. Not to trash the airline. To balance the page. As the page read before my edit, it seemed to me like a pretty slick marketing piece. I don't know how a page with almost all positive information about a subject can be considered "neutral." To Thargor Orlando, please share with me more details about your deletion. Thanks. Sorry, forgot to login and sign my name. RepordRider (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Balance the page all you want, I have no complaints with balance. The criticisms have to be noteworthy and sourced reliably, however. Self-published books and blogs do not cut it, nor do individual complaints from Huffington writers that never leave the Huffington Post. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Fleet error?

In the Fleet section of the page, it says that Frontier has 2 x Airbus A330-200 on order. I follow the airline quite closely and I cannot find any supporting evidence for this, either on the Frontier site or at the Airbus website.

It would be a massive change of business model for the airline to acquire wide body aircraft and I think there would have been some attention if it had been announced. This "order" did not exist while the airline was owned by Republic and since it was sold to Indigo just a couple of months, no aircraft order has been announced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marinerpacific (talk • contribs) 17:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

A321?

Who got the idea that Frontier had 5 of the Airbus A321's on order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisonbreakfreak (talk • contribs) 06:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Where does it say this, I keep changing it but people keep changing it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.38.253 (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

More fleet errors

In the fleet section, it says that the Frontier fleet includes 24 x Beechcraft 1900D and 6 x Embraer EMB 120 Brasilia aircraft, and lists both types as "operated by Great Lakes."

Frontier's fleet has never included those aircraft. Frontier has a code share with Great Lakes (as does United), which does operate the aircraft as part of its own fleet.Marinerpacific (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Frontier Airlines/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.

Assessed as "B" class article 4 out of the 5 criteria are fine but the article still lacks many references. Marcusmax 02:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 02:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)