Talk:Emirates (airline)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Revenue, Profit etc

The 2010-11 results were out on 10 May, so it could be added to the article. The sidebox as well as the table of historical performance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.49.92.51 (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Syrian Airlines

It's written that Emirates will start a route to Sao Paulo Brazil and that it will be the first middle eastern line to fly to South America. That is not true, Syrian Airlines flies to Caracas, Venezuela.

Iran Air fly to Caracas with Syrian Air code sharing on the flights.

According to their websites neither Syrian Air nor Iran Air flies to Caracas (or anywhere in the Americas). Emirates has services to Sao Paulo. Iraqi Airlines used to fly to Rio de Janeiro. And El Al occasionally flew to Buenos Aires (of which Adolf Eichmann travelled on with a one-way ticket) Kransky (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Last edits

I merged the two sections on ICE into one. I also removed "...at a rate of 80 per week, due to rise to 160 per week..." from the opening as it was covered later on with different figures. In the Business Class section it says "...with a 60" pitch..." is that 60 inches or 60 degrees? I also noticed that a couple of sections had fact tags at the beginning which I replaced with Refimprovesect. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

More cleanup

I found that all 4 gallery images were also in the article and the Manchester Ringway was in 3 times. I merged the "Partnerships and Alliances" and the "Codeshare agreements" into one section as they are the same thing. Changed bullet points into prose (badly). Most of the "Destinations" is now at Emirates destinations as this article is getting too large. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've sort of changed the page by moving some infromation around. Another main thing i did was i removed the fleet orders from the current fleet tables (both passenger and cargo fleets) and added another two tables to diiferentiate the current fleet with the fleet orders, please tell me what you think. [[User_talk:Mohammed Hasanie |(Talk)]] 20:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Emirates.jpg

Image:Emirates.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Dates: Which style?

Some dates are written like this...October 27, 2007. Others are written like this....27 October 2007. WP:DATE states that both are acceptable but that only one style should be used in a particular article. I can't see a need for discussion of this point but simply a vote (unless one style is predominately used in Dubai). Usually a discussion is more appropriate and not a vote.Archtransit 23:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
For October 27, 2007:

For 27 October 2007:

• I believe that this style is the best. I personally think the date should come before the month. I find it easier to read, and also I believe it is used more than the former style. --Leitmanp 23:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Just change your preferences to see what you want. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversy Section

I just read this section for the first time and it sounds very one-sided to me. It's called a "Controversy" section yet it reads more like a section attacking European legacy carriers for foul play. In fact there's nothing "controversial" about Emirates Airline in the section, which is what it's supposed to be used for. The information that's there now is more relevant in the other airlines' pages not this one. Anyone else have an opinion? NcSchu_(Talk) 22:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe all that the section needs is a change in the title. I cannot think of what the title should be, but maybe someone else can. -- Leitmanp 05:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• I agreed, but don't know how exactly it will best be fixed. I will mark this section with the Neutral macro until this is cleared up? JoshFarron 09:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I changed the name of the section to 'rivlary'....sounds fair, non? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.232.24.29 (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Passenger versus Cargo

I believe that this article should only be about the passenger airline. Anything dealing with SkyCargo should be removed and put on the Emirates SkyCargo page. This would include the removal of the cargo fleet and an adjustment to the number of destinations. In the article is states that Emirates flies "to 94 cities in 60 countries on six continents." This number includes the passenger and cargo services. In reality, Emirates (the passenger airline) only flies to 87 different destinations, in 86 different cities (London is counted twice due to flights to both Heathrow and Gatwick), in 55 countries (I went to the Emirates Route Map and counted to be sure). I would be interested to hear what people have to say about this proposal. If there is no opposition to this change by 03:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC), I will go ahead to change it myself. Thank you. --Leitmanp 05:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Customer for 747-8

Should the link below be put into the paragraph about Emirates ordering the 747-8 if Boeing provides a shrink version?. According to this article, http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/AQTU09706112007-1.htm Boeing has frozen the 747-8 design and nothing is mentioned about the short- shrink version(which would allow for DXB-LAX, 365 days a year with good cargo capabilities) that Tim Clark has been pushing for because that was the only condition a 747-8 order would be signed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melrosepark (talk • contribs) 22:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm, I'd wait and see what EK says. WhisperToMe 00:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Clean Up

At some point tonight I am going to start cleaning up Emirates Airline page. It has become cluttered, and has alot of facts that are just facts and do not add to the overall experience or have any significance. Any comments please respond.--Jab843 (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Remove Clean Up template

i think the Emirates Airline page looks really good and most information has been placed into other pages. But i think it is time we removed the clean up template, since the page does't need it anymore. Thanks.(mini mo 12:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC))

Routes

This article is about Emirates Airline and not Emirates SkyCargo. Therfore, Emirates flies to 88 destinations in 55 countries (once service to Cape Town begins in March 2008 it will be 89 destinations in 55 countries), NOT 99 cities in 69 countries. I have changed it to the former. Also, Emirates flies to 88 destinations, but 87 cities. The reason is because Emirates flies to two airports in London (London Heathrow Airport and London Gatwick Airport). This counts as two destinations, but as one city. I have changed the information so it takes this into account. If you want to contest any part of what I have just mentioned, please leave a comment here so we can discuss it. Please do not revert my edit. I do not want to start an edit war, and it would be better to keep it the same until we reach a consensus. Thank you. --Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 00:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I perfectly agree. I had actually changed it a couple of days ago, but someone decided to inflate the number of destinations! With regards to the destinations/cities difference, I do apologise, it was my mistake: I was, in fact, counting destinations, not cities, but didn't realise that I had left the word "cities" as opposed to "destinations" in the text. Cheers!

--Radarino (talk | contributions) 08:37 GMT, 13 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radarino (talk • contribs) 08:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted a change to the number of cities and countries that Emirates serves. I will restate my reason: Emirates' passenger service flies to 88 destinations in 55 countries. When you included Emirates SkyCargo into these statistics, it becomes 97 destinations in 60 countries. But, this article is about the Emirates that does passenger services; so cargo information should not be included. Also, I went to the Emirates Route Map, and counted all the destinations and countries myself to be sure that I was right. If you disagree, please discuss it here before you revert it. Thank you. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 04:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It has happened again. Now that flights to Cape Town have begun, Emirates flies to 89 destinations in 55 countries. This number will change to 91 destinations in 55 countries when Emirates begins flights to Kozhikode and to Guangzhou on 1 July 2008. Some people may say that after Emirates began flights to Cape Town, Emirates hit the 100 mark. This is only true when including Emirates passenger flights and Emirates SkyCargo. For the purposes of this article, we are only including passenger service. Therefore, the number of flights is 89. Please, do not change any information on the article without consensus here on the talk page. Thank you. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 06:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Dates

To the various IP's that are changing the two dates. Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dates) which is quite clear on the matter, "Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes or articles, or put a comma between month and year." I note too that it's only the two dates in the box that are being changed yet there are multiple others throughout the article that don't include the ordinal suffixes. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

name of airline

What's the name of this airline? I thought it was "Emirates". Sometimes "Emirate Airline" (not "Airlines") is used. Is this a grammatical error that the company started? Does this deserve mention or is there a history about the terminology used? Archtransit (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In terms of common names, clearly Emirates should be the preferred name. I am still wondering why there is a page move to its current name.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Emirates can mean anything. It can mean the company (not the airline), the country, the stadium. So thats why, we gave it Emirates Ailine. 18:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klop09 (talk • contribs)

Sure, "Emirates" as a word can mean many things, but on the page about the airline, it would be more than reasonable to truncate it just to "Emirates." Emirates does not call itself Emirates Airlines. 71.234.109.192 (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

destinations: incorrect number

(to 88 destinations in 55 countries all over the world) this needs to be changed, Emirates now flies to 100 destinations around the world. can someone do this please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.208.42.22 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 18 March 2008

Please see the message a few sections up titled "Routes" for information on this. Thank you. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 02:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Destination countries

The article needs to be consistant. If the two destination boxes are going to use the redirect "United States of America" then every time "United States" is used in the article needs to be changed as well. At the same time if the full formal name of one country is being used then the same applies to other countries, Republic of South Africa, Republic of India, Federal Republic of Germany, Republic of Turkey, Commonwealth of Australia and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should stick with the common names. United States, China, South Africa, etc. are the most common names of these countries. People seldom refer to countries with "Republic of ...", "Federation of ...", "Commonwealth of ...". Therfore, we should only do what is common and not what is perfect and precise. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 06:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I'm not sure that merging four articles into here would be a good idea. This article is already rather large and could do with reducing in size which is why some of them were created. The only advantage is that it would make it easier to see when advertising material is added. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla

I agree that it is not a good idea to merge all of those articles. This article already contains a lot of information and several "main articles" helps keep this page precise and not so long. Actually, back in October 2007 several articles relating to Emirates were created to take weight off of this article. Merging everything back would undo those exact edits. There is really no point to merge everything into one article. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Emirates SkyCargo article merger related

I think its a good idea to merge the article into Emirates Airline, infact I say all airlines having seperate articles for them like Singapore Airlines Cargo, Air China Cargo, MAS Kargo, Lufthansa Cargo should be merged into teh main airlines article and destinations list, Cathay Pcific Cargo and El Al Cargo articles were merged into the main airlines articles.(203.81.237.164 (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

Not quite. The reason that Emirates SkyCargo should be merged into this article, is because Emirates SkyCargo is not an airline. It doesn't hold an air operator's certificate, it doesn't have any aircraft registered in its name, it is not a stand-alone company (it's a division of Emirates Airline), and doesn't operate service utilising its own call-sign. There are entities such as Aeroflot-Cargo, Singapore Airlines Cargo, Lufthansa Cargo, etc which do have their own AOC, do have aircraft registered in their name, and are separated legally from their name sake by way of being a separate company. The very basic requirement to call an entity an airline is holding a valid AOC - if these cargo entities don't have that AOC, they need to be merged into the main article. --Россавиа ^Диалог 19:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose; Whether or not Emirates SkyCargo is a different company is not the issue. SkyCargo does have an identity and does form a large part of Emirates. Emirates (the passenger airline) and SkyCargo operate separately although they are under the same umbrella. I oppose merging the articles together for that reason. Also, merging more things into this article is a bad idea; see my comment in the section above. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I say the article should be merged, if you look at Emirates SkyCargo article all it will take is one paragraph and only the all freighter destinations (the ones taht are exclusivly served through freighters only) to add to the main Emirates article and destination list.(203.81.239.79 (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC))

I strongly disagree that this article should be merged. Emirates SkyCargo and Emirates Airline are both subsidiary companies of Emirates Group. My company works with both SkyCargo and Airline, but we had to establish those arrangements seperately at Group level. By the same rationale as is being proposed, you should merge both Emirates Airlines and Emirates SkyCargo into Emirates Group. I'm sure we can see how silly that is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.30.22.119 (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Only those cargo carriers with independant AOC's should have their own articles, these are China Cargo Airlines, Lufthansa Cargo and Singapore Airlines Cargo, the rest should be merged.(116.71.52.157 (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC))

Then every airline with a seprate Cargo divison should have a seprate article for the Cargo wing at wikipedia, but then again El Al and Cathay Pacific Cargo articles were deleted from here and now redirect to the main airline articles.(203.81.239.188 (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC))

Twice daily

Anon 58.179.64.21 continually changes “daily” to “Daily” in the article, as in the extract below:

Destination	Frequency (per week)	Aircraft	Commencing
London, United Kingdom	7 (Daily)	Airbus A380	1 December 2008
Guangzhou, China	7 (Daily)	Boeing 777-200ER (all same aircraft)	1 December 2008

In my opinion there is no reason to capitalise “daily” since it is inside the phrase “7 (daily)". If I imagine that the 7 had been written in full like this - Seven (Daily) - (which doesn't change the argument) it seems clear to me that a capital is wrong. Also the anon changes “twice daily” to “double daily”, which sounds odd. What is people's opinion on these two points, please? - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 08:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• The daily is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized. The Manual of Style states this too. Double daily seems less clear to me. Sounds more like going double or nothing on a bet. I adjusted the table coding above to look like the one in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree, daily is not a proper noun. As to double daily, the anon did once, I think claim, that it was seen that way in trade magazines, which may be possible, but would not be common. It makes me think of coffee, look at the disambiguation wording. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • As per usual I left a note to the IP to respond here but I suspect they won't. They never have before and only comment in the edit summaries. They may never even see the note as they chnage IP's daily. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Double daily is not standard english usage although the travel business use it sometimes. Nothing wrong with twice daily. MilborneOne (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I am for keeping "daily" without the capital letter. I see no point to capitalizing a word that is all by itself, especially if it is not a proper noun. As for the amount of flights per day, I am for "twice daily." I believe it sounds better and is more natural to English, and because "double daily" almost sounds like Daily Double in the game show Jeopardy!. --Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 04:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments, much appreciated - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

all same aircraft

What does that mean? Does it mean that they are going to use the same aircraft, with the same tail letters, day after day? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It means that this destination will only be served by one type of aircraft and not different types throughout the week. As you can see by this edit, someone does not think that Guangzhou will be served by multiple types of aircraft. By adding "all same aircraft," they were justifying their edit. According to this article in a Dubai newspaper, it says that Emirates will use an Airbus A330-200 from 1 July to 30 November. Beginning 1 December, Emirates will use an A340-300 for six days and an Airbus A330-200 on the seventh day. But, this article was from 4 March 2008, and I know that Emirates changed the aircraft used for Cape Town a short while after they announced flights to that city. I am not sure if they did the same for Guangzhou; User:Jay zrules2 could be right. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 04:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I removed it. None of the others use it and they appear to be the same. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 14:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

USA

Could Emirates - in theory - open a base in the United States. So would they be able to serve for example Amsterdam from Chicago or New York? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.216.232 (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Table of flight changes

What is the point for the table in the Destinations section that shows changes in frequencies or aircraft for different destinations that Emirates serves? I personally do not think Wikipedia should provide such detailed information that does not provide any encyclopedic content. It is also difficult to maintain or to ensure the accuracy. I believe the only table we should include is that of the new destinations. If someone truly wants to find which type of plane Emirates uses for a certain destination or how many times a week that destination is served, they can use Emirates' website. Wikipedia is only meant to provide information and not flight schedules and specifics about different routes. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 21:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with you totally on the subject. By the way why are you so adamant in listing country next to city in the new destinations table? its unecessary and looks crowded too, I have removed it and even improvised it many times which made more sense, but you have always reverted my edits to your own prefernces, you do not own the Emirates article.(203.81.239.188 (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC))

It should probably go and would then mean that the second box, "Aircraft Changes/Increased Flight Frequency", would no longer be needed either. The country names should stay as there is no way to tell if every reader knows what country the cities are in. At the same time I also wonder about the two boxes in the "Performance" section, are they really required? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather, I was only referring to the removal of "Aircraft Changes/Increased Flight Frequency," not "New Destinations from Dubai." I am also opposed to the removal of the two tables in the "Performance" section. I believe they provide good information, but I think they are either poorly placed or too big. Maybe a reorganization is needed for that section? Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 23:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood which box you were talking about. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Okay, I removed it. What should be done with the performance tables? Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 23:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

City, country

An anonymous editor has changed the format of the city and country for the destinations in the New Destinations table. This user believes that the original version was crowded and was harder to view. The original version's format was CITY, COUNTRY. The anonymous editor changed it to CITY - (COUNTRY), then subsequently changed it to CITY <br/> (COUNTRY). I believe we should use the original version (CITY, COUNTRY). This is the usual format for writing the city and country. This format also, contrary to what the anonymous editor says, does not make the table crowded or difficult to read. I would like to see what the views of other editors are so we can reach consensus. Thank you. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 00:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked at it on a 15" monitor at work. The standard CITY, COUNTRY looks fine. What might help is to use Frequency<br>(per week). That box is rather wide for the small amount of data in it. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 10:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with "Frequency <br> (per week)" for the column title. I will wait a few more days before I change anything to allow for the opposition to voice their opinion. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done I have just changed it. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 21:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Obsessive control freaks, get a life, I cant believe such ridiculous issues are of concern here, talk about being petty.(inspector 15:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC))

Fuel subsidies from UAE gov't to the airline

I believe I read somewhere (though I can't find a reference at the moment) that the Emirates is able to buy fuel at below-market prices arranged by the UAE gov't. Can someone confirm or deny this? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inetpup (talk • contribs) 06:58, 15 July 2008

Thats absolutely incorrect.They pay at regular prices. (mini mo 21:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammed Hasanie (talk • contribs)

Inetpup, there have been a lot of people/companies/governments that have accused Emirates of receiving subisdized fuel from the government. Emirates has constantly denied these claims. Actually, Emirates has recently announced that the high cost of aviation fuel has led to the cancellation of a future flight to Durban, South Africa and the suspension of flights to Alexandria, Egypt. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 07:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

How can Emirates be "the seventh-largest airline in the world in terms of international passengers carried" and also "the eighth largest airline in Asia, in terms of passengers carried"? 203.12.172.254 (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Because one refers to international passengers and the other to all passengers, which includes domestic. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Airbus A380 routes

Does anyone know which routes, except from New York, London and Sydney-Auckland are planned to be operated by the A380? Rumors are of course also welcomed, but please don´t think up anything just to write something down. Dagadt (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

There will be no New York flights, it has been changed to Toronto, Canada. --Turbinator (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

As of February 1st 2010. There will be a morning flight to Paris daily. --Lanhai (Talk) 12:15, 16 July 2009 (EST)

Too Much Information!

I mean seriously, do we really need all the information that people keep stuffing onto the page? Parts of it have started to look like a balance sheet, and not an encyclopaedia article. On top of that, is there really any need of an entire page's worth of spiel on their IFE system? And nearly 200 references (over a dozen of which link to the various stables and football teams they sponsor). Serious overkill in my opinion - and I suggest a lot of the info be removed, because its irrelevant and unnecessary. Jasepl (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I would agree, far to much non-notable information, the financials and fleet info could be spun out to a child articles. The IFE is probably a bit over the top more like an advertisement. You could probably lose Terminal 3 info and the gallery (as we have a commons link for that). When you get near the bottom of the article, if you ever get that far the trivia and non-notable info increases!. MilborneOne (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the gallery as the article has far to many images and doesnt need more in a gallery, users can use commons link to find other images. MilborneOne (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I am thinking of splitting this article into a 2 or 3 smaller more specific articles, and only keeping the very basic info of the airline on the main article. This article is way too long, and contains over 110 kilobytes of info and is expanding by 2 kilobytes every 4 or 5 days!!

Lets try bringing the article to 70 kilobytes. Please remember to discuss here before any major edits take place. I don't want any info lost, just transfer it into new articles.

These are the following smaller articles i've thought of:

• Emirates Fleet

Also, i am planning to remove some info from the fleet table. Not any of the years, but some columns such as yield and Unit cost from the financial table, and in the operational statistics i will remove the destinations column, Aircraft departures from Dubai International Airport column, and the Number of employees column.

(MoHasanie (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)).

I have no problem with the fleet info being split out into another article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've finished with creating a new article and i'v kept the basic info in the fleet table. Any edits on the fleet details should be made on Emirates Airlines Fleet. For some strange reason, this link goes to the main Emirates Airline article, and not the one i created for it. Can someone help me?

Because Emirates Airline Fleet and Emirates Airlines Fleet are not the same! MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've also moved some information to The Emirates Group article. (MoHasanie (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)).

I've added a to do list. Please change it, if you want something done.

In total i have removed 27 kilobytes of information, bringing the total size to 83 kilobytes. (MoHasanie (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)).

• Its back up past 90kb - with user MoHasanie ("Lets try bringing the article to 70 kilobytes") striking again. Over half the article can easily go - its not noteworthy! Jasepl (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver?

Does anyone know if emirates has any plans to fly to Vancouver? Rumors say that it could be starting next spring but with the delay of the Airbus A380's Los Angles and San Fran are being delayed. 91.73.168.89 (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Fleet

Why don't we put the total Emirates fleet in the infobox including the Emirates SkyCargo fleet. Because technically if you think about it, they operate as one unit and not a different subsidary of the Emirates Group. Without Emirates Airline, Emirates SkyCargo would handle very little. Its something the airlines competitors have critisced them for doing. So lets include the total fleet, but put a note next to it showing that this figure includes the SkyCargo fleet as well. (MoHasanie (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)).

Encyclopedia or fan site?

Good Lord! What's up with the overly gushy praise of the wonderfulness that Emirates is purported to be? I mean sure, even if Emirates is the best thing since sliced bread (if the EK fanatics are to be believed)... but come on! Really? Half of the article looks like it was written by a 14 year old girl in dedication of her latest boyband crush, and the other half reads like an advertisement (and seems to me like it was plagiarized directly from somewhere else)! To top it off, 1/3rd of the airtcle looks like frivolous references to absolutely useless "information"... Oy vey! Does anyone know if this article has been looked at for acceptability and validity? Or should I start doing the honors? It is supposed to be an encyclopedia, right? 114.31.174.214 (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Why is there so much promotional material in this article? It really does read like some teenage girl with a crush wrote it. All airlines have seats on all their planes! And they all have IFE. All airlines serve food too. Does there have to be 3 pages of fluff for that? 59.182.189.40 (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I sort of do agree with you, BUT you don't need to remove the operational and financial peformance, and alot of other things like the sponsorships. The only section which needs to be rewritten is the cabin section, and that needs to be discussed first. I suggest you create an account, and then discuss every edit that you do. Also many airline articles describe the food, and the entertainment served on the aircraft.--MoHasanie  Talk  14:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but you're the one who keeps adding massive amounts of the same fluff you're just now decrying. Sponsorships, cabin layout, seat width & pitch, the wonderfulness of the IFE, meal choices, the location of every single lounge (which is incorrect, by the way - but, obviously, that doesn't matter, since only your edits to the article can be retained, because you seem to act as if you own the article)... These do not belong in an encyclopedic article, at least not in their current form. Because (a) this is not a travel guide (b) nor is this an investor report (c) this is not a fan site either (d) it does not belong here anyway and (e) it's overtly like an advertisement (and I'm not the only one who feels that). And why must anyone discuss every single edit, when you don't feel the need to when you add volumes to the article on a daily basis? 59.182.159.22 (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes i do agree. But first of all, this is a company, and like many airlines such as British Airways, Singapore Airlines, and Malaysia Airlines, they all have there operational and financial pefromance. Secondly, i do not dicuss every single edit i do, because no one contests them. I do agree, i should, but recently i haven't really added any new info, all i've been doing is creating new articles and trying to make this article smaller. Thirdly, i do not act as if this is my article, i just try to stop people like you from vandalising the article. Also, the seat pitch and the lounge info is included in most good airline articles. Besides, i didn't even add that. Its been in the article for more than a year now. All i've done, is created a branding section, an operational and financial peformance table (which was taken off from the Singapore Airlines]] article. And enhanced the entertainment system section. And this was all done way back in April, which now has been slightly changed. Basically the main thing i did was provide refrences for all the unsourced statements. Everything else existed for almost 2 years now on the article. --MoHasanie  Talk  16:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Listen, i';m not saying that whatyou're doing is completely bad. You have good intentions, and if you look at the beginning of the discussion page, you'll see it says "rewrite the entire article, and remove weasel words". BUT if you are going to remove so much material, and info that isn't even written like an advert, and on top of that not discussing, then it is considered vandalism. Removing valuable information should not be done. As i said before, the only section that is needed to be rewritten is the cabin section. --MoHasanie  Talk  01:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I;ve changed the task aim, to only rewritting the sponsorship section and cabin section.--MoHasanie  Talk  12:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I've given a bit of a clean-up to the "business class" section of the article, but it probably requires a bit more, cleaning up in order to make it look less like an advertisement. Hope what I did was ok. Regards, Radarino (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah what you did was good. You didn't get rid of everything, you just got rid of the uneeded advert written stuff. --MoHasanie  Talk  00:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have rewritten the Economy Class section:

Emirates Economy Class offers a 32-34 inch seat pitch (81-86 cm) and standard seat width (except on the Boeing 777 fleet). The seat features adjustable headrests, a 600-1000 channel ICE In-Flight-Entertainment and in-seat laptop power-outlets on newer aircraft and laptop recharging facilities in galleys in older aircraft. There is additional recline on A380 Economy Class seats.

Emirates Airlines operates a highly unusual ten-abreast 3-4-3 seating configuration on its 777 fleet (rather than the most customary 3-3-3 configuration). Other airlines with this configuration include Air France-KLM (on selected 777-300ER aircraft), China Southern Airlines and two Japanese airlines in domestic services (Al Nippon Airways and Japan Airlines).

If you don't like it then change it back, it was written in a hurry so there will probably be problems with it. Thanks, --Plane Person (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Bogota, Columbia

What is happening to the Bogota service? I noticed it has been removed from the new destinations table but is it listening in the text above? Can anyone shed some light on this subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by M i k e y 86 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• first thing, iits the columbian minister who made the statement no official announcement from emirates and no start date or confirmation so it cannot be mentioned in the table —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.148.197 (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• cool, thanks for that! I did notice that it was listed on here but no mention of it on the emirates site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M i k e y 86 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Virgin Blue codeshare

Emirates recently formed a codeshare agreement with the Australian Virgin Blue. I know it's not mentioned on the list here, but there is proof that the agreement has definitely gone ahead. The destinations I listed in this edit can be found here and a more reliable news source published this article. I just wanted to provide significant proof. --timsdad ^(talk) 06:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Emirates Airline/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I beleive this is a good article, and think its C-class rating is too low. It has many images, and provides refrences for everything. (MoHasanie (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)).

Theres a lot of junk in the article and it needs a really good cleanup. But I'm a big fan of Emirates so it would be good to see it with a good article status. I'll try and make it better if I can.

PS:How do you suggest a re-evaluation? Because theres some articles and I would like re-evaluated.

Thanks a lot, --Plane Person (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

That would be great to remove all the junk in order to make it a GA class article. Can you please point out the junk info, so that it can be removed. That would be great if you could. --MoHasanie  Talk  14:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Closing GAR

This article is not a former Good Article Nominee and does not appear to be a former GA, so the use of a GAReassessment is inappropriate. If you think that the article is GA-standard, the appropriate response is to nominate the article at WP:GAN. Pyrotec (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Citations needed

Warning: There are several items in this article that need citation. If no sources are provided for them, I'm afraid they are going to be deleted. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 12:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Help is needed

Is anybody going to help me with improving Emirates (airline)? I've created a peer review page at Wikipedia:Peer review/Emirates (airline)/archive1, and only one person has posted comments to far. I think Emirates has the potential to be an FA-status article. All I need is help, and it doesn't seem to be arriving soon. Sp33dyphil ^{(Talk) (Contributions)(Feed back needed @ Talk page)} 07:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, in "Airbus A380" section, why the box of "Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed Al-Maktoum" is crossing the texts in the paragraph ? *** in fact *** ( contact ) 07:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Airlines that fly to 6 continents

It's written that Emirates is one of the nine airlines that fly to every inhabited continent... Where does this number come from? It's easy to check that every airline in the list flies to all the continents, but it's definitely wrong, as other airlines, that are not included in the list, fly to 6 continents: Air France, for example, flies for years to North America (e.g. NYC), South America (ex. Buenos Aires), Africa (e.g. Dakar), Europe (e.g. Paris), Asia (e.g. Tokyo) and Oceania (Papeete The information needs to changes in the airlines of the other airlines, like BA, AF, Delta, ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snosal (talk • contribs) 16:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Incidents and accidents section.

I've removed the incidents and accidents section for now, until we sort out the problems. There is a lot of copy violations. That aside, the section is overly detailed, written in expert language (looks like official reports) and includes some trivial items such as a plane taxiing on to the grass.--Dmol (talk) 09:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)