Open main menu

Talk:Business jet

WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated Start-class)
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.
WikiProject Business  
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


This needs a disambiguation page as Bizjet is a company and bizjet automatically gets routed to "Business Jet" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 13:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Lufthansa subsidiary BizJet International ( doesn't have an article. Defunct United BizJet Holdings Inc. is available at Avolar (UAL Corporation subsidiary), and seems to have been known as "Avolar" not 'Bizjet'. -- (talk) 06:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Dab page is located at bizjet (disambiguation) -- commenter form year 2005, or others, can expand that. (talk) 07:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

What about companies that offer dead leg seats?Edit

I have heard they are out there. I just do not know of any. A dead leg is when a private jet flies someone from Point A to Point B but returns to Point A while the person stays at Point B. It later returns to pick that person up.

Suppose Bill Gates is going to fly from Redmond, WA to Martha's Vineyard for a vacation. His jet might return to Remond. This return leg might be to allow the jet to be serviced or fly someone else somewhere. This trip back to Redmond is a "dead leg" because the jet's owners are not assured of a paying passenger.

Later, the jet will need to return to Martha's Vineyard to pick Gates back up and take him home. However, since the jet is somewhere other than Martha's Vineyard, it must make another dead leg trip.

As I understand it, there are companies that sell seats on dead leg trips for those jet owners. However, Wikipedia does not appear to have a dead leg article. Nor does it mention dead legs in the private jet article. Will 01:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting. We don't have much about the detail of the bizjet charter business in the article whatsoever, which should be added (but unfortunately, not many of us get to experience bizjet chartering all that often...). --Robert Merkel 02:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to credit help in building a section or article? Perhaps we could contact an advertising office of one of the companies, and ask for information in return for a small credit (e.g. as a reference. [1] 1. Information in this article comes from the CharterJets Inc., P.R. Department.) or something like that. I understand if the consensus is that something like that would violate the neutrality of the article. 21:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
No, sorry, it's not possible to do that. The information needs to come from verifiable third-party source. I find it hard to believe that with the number of magazines, both aviation business related (Ie, Business and Commercial Aviation) and business related (ie, Forbes), that have covered this industry, no one can dig out a ref? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 21:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
You may be conflating two different aviation terms... A route without a paying passenger is usually referred to as an "empty leg" and the process of flying an empty plane is known as "deadheading." A number of charter companies send out empty leg newsletters announcing upcoming flights at reduced prices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GBright (talkcontribs) 05:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


Why aren't Gulfstreams mentioned, the Caddillac of Business Jets? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 02:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Very Light JetsEdit

Merging this would mean you would need to merge very light jets too. I propose very light jets are merged into this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 05:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

List BoxesEdit

Suggest using list boxes too divided by manufacturer so the mess of the list of airlines do not transcend to the growing list of businss and executive aircraft.

That list of airlines is useless to navigate through......Endless scrolling... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Should we place a list? Or is that unencyclopedic?Edit

  • I found this. Is this encyclopedic? Or should this not be added?

==List of bizjets, business jets, executive jets, and very light jets==
===Out of Operation===
===In Minimal Use===
===In Production===  
===See also=== 

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


From the article:

The most exclusive type of private jet is the heavy jet type, which is designed for the ultimate in large capacity luxury air travel. Aircraft of this class includes:

Isn't this usage of the word "exclusive" wrong? "Exclusive" doesn't mean "luxurious" or "fancy". It means "only available to few". JIP | Talk 19:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems right to me, but we can use "the rarest type", "the most expensive", "the harder to see", etc. Or: "The most exclusive type of private jet is the heavy jet type, due mainly to its cost. This type is often designed for the ultimate in large capacity luxury air travel. Aircraft of this class includes:" Aldo L (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Missing Light business jetEdit

Piaggio P180 Avanti is missing. It is a ligt business jet in production in Italy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The Avanti is not a jet, it is a turboprop. Aldo L (talk) 04:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a performance advantage of fuselage mounted engines, they are not mounted there because they cannot fit under low wings.Edit

By having fuselage mounted engines, they are closer to the centre line of the aircraft. Therefore should an engine failure occur the yawing (turning forces) caused by asymmetric thrust from the remaining engine are reduced.

This makes the aircraft more controllable, especially at lower speeds where reduced airflow over the rudder makes it less effective.

The shortest runway an aircraft can safely take off from is one on which it can suffer an engine failure during acceleration and either abort and stop before running off the end or continue accelerating on the remaining engine and successfully take off. Pilots use a nominated speed called V1 as a decision point to either continue (at V1 or above) or stop (below V1) following an engine failure. The lowest speed that V1 can be is dictated by whether they can overcome the asymmetric yaw of the remaining engine's thrust using rudder inputs and have sufficient directional control to continue accelerating along the runway and take off.

Having fuselage mounted engines means more control at lower speed and therefore allows a lower V1. Having a lower V1 means that less distance is required to stop following an engine failure below V1. Therefore a shorter runway can safely be used.

During climb out after a takeoff following an engine failure, an aircraft with fuselage mounted engines can also climb at a lower speed and still maintain control. This means the pilots are able to pitch the nose up higher for a given power setting and therefore achieve a better angle of climb (vertical height gained for ground distance covered). This is particularly useful when departing airports with high terrain surrounding them.

These performance advantages enable a greater takeoff weight under like for like conditions meaning that a greater fuel and/or payload can be carried. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The original reason for rear-mounted engines was to provide a 'clean', more-efficient, wing uncluttered by engines, pylons, etc. This allowed for higher cruise speeds (higher Critical Mach number) and a better take-off performance as most of the wing is producing lift. With pylon-mounted engines a significant proportion of the wing produces considerably less lift than the 'clean' portions due to the interference with the airflow caused by the pylons and engines. Thus with rear-mounted engines a smaller wing of greater overall-efficiency can be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


The current classes listed (Heavy jets, Large-cabin jets, Super mid-size jets, Mid-size jets, Light jets, Very light jets) is a very difficult topic to make encyclopedic, bordering WP:OR. I made a table with multiple sources and a consensus, do you think this consensus with sources should be replacing the current listing? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, so I've done it.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


I dont have a problem with listing the different types of business jets, but I dont think the large an complicated comparison charts are encyclopedic, suggest we go for something simpler. If the reader needs to the detailed information then they can go to the related aircraft article, thoughts ? MilborneOne (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The point is to allow comparisons, so price new and seats would be needed. Range is the main perf spec for bizjet, cruise speed could be ditched as most are transonic jets (but M0.9+ is a selling point for some, and at the opposite end the SF50 is slower than fast turboprops). Internal dimensions are useful to compare offerings (width is more useful than length though). MTOW and engines are defining design choices, but thrust could be omitted. Fuel burn is a good indication of its efficiency, and variable costs are correlated. External dimensions aren't so important for me but others may differ.It could look like: [ Model | Price | Pax | int.W | Engines | MTOW | Range | Fuel/nmi ]--Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
But this is an encyclopedia not a buying guide and as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not says it is not price comparison service. That said I dont have a problem with a list of types with number of seats and range but as I have said before wikipedia is not an aircraft catalogue, relevant points if noteworthy should be in the relevant aircraft article. If nobody else turns up for this discussion I will raise at aircraft project for others to comment. MilborneOne (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
WP is not a price comparison service (like google shopping, in a market way, with a shopping basket at the end) but values are a part of any industry, and an encyclopedia should not avoid it. Aircraft encyclopedia like Jane's all the world aircraft or Flight's commercial aircraft does include them. If prices are in the infobox, it's because they are related to an aircraft capability: a $200M B777 can do things a $20M ATR can't. It's an info I hope for in Wikipedia. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
This is not about mentioning cost or value in the aircraft article its about having a comparison table, it is not something we normally do. MilborneOne (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Project notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Business Jet Comparisons

The article is full of price comparison text and tables. Clearly runs afoul of policy WP:NOPRICES, does not belong in an encyclopedia and should be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
It certainly sounds like the driving force behind ncluding these is to inform buyers ("M0.9+ is a selling point", "width is more useful than length", "Fuel burn is a good indication of its efficiency"). This is not at all what Wikipedia's mission is. I've yet to hear why this information is important to readers. CThomas3 (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
The "something we normally do" can evolve, by wikipedia's WP:BRD cycle in this case: it's a three year old addition, no one had a problem with those in this time.
"To inform buyers": almost no one buys bizjets, and I don't think they would use wikipedia as a shopping guide. But readers interested in bizjets can have a complete info, including values and have an understanding of their operation. What is Wikipedia's mission? What is important to readers?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Greetings Marc, thank you for asking. I am going to try to answer your question from what I see as the perspective of the non-buyer. To me, they would fall into one of two broad categories: those that are genuinely interested in essentially every fact and measurable, and those that are interested more in the aircraft's story rather than the the statistics, save perhaps the most basic. By concentrating on what I would consider to be the "buyers' criteria" (as it appears that you have, focusing on what makes these jets competitive in the market), I think we have missed catering to either group. The former won't understand why you have prioritized interior width over length, left out exterior dimensions and cruise speed, etc. The latter will think you've taken up valuable space in the article with a number of irrelevant details while potentially failing to capture the most basic ones ("how big is it?" "how fast does it go?"). To the non-buyer, cost is practically irrelevant, depreciation even moreso. Both would be trivia at best, a number they would have a difficult time putting into perspective. And I would also say that I don't believe that most non-buying readers are all that interested in doing detailed side-by-side comparisons. If they were, I would have expected this sort of thing to come up long ago with our military aircraft articles, where there are far more enthusiasts, and head-to-head comparisons are actually far more relevant (as they actually do go head-to-head from time to time). Does this help at all? CThomas3 (talk) 08:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your insight and civility. Why favouring one group or the other? A simpler comparison could be had in simple wikipedia. It's not because an average person can't buy it that its value isn't interesting: it needs a collective effort to build and operate, like a large ship or a bridge. An individual can understand its economics when it's used by a group he is part of, a corporation or a country. I believe military aircraft enthusiasts are more interested in technology and capabilities than in economics of commercial aircraft. Commercial aircraft enthusiasts are interested in economics, like in Lacoste (talk) 08:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
BTW, those interested more in the aircraft's story rather than the statistics have them at the article beginning.
Return to "Business jet" page.