Talk:List of largest airlines in Oceania

Factual accuracy

Problems with this article:

• It is not sourced/referenced
• Air Tahiti Nui does not operate 10 aircraft
• Norfolk Air has a single aircraft - not 10
• Air New Zealand does not fly 49 Aircraft —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.215.137 (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Tiger Airways Australia has not a single aircraft - it hasn't even started operating yet.
• What about airlines such as Skywest Airlines, Airlines PNG, National Jet Systems, etc?

As it stands now, this article violates WP:OR. --Russavia 23:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There are {{fact}} tags on the numbers. This is because MOST of them, are not sourced. Please, discuss removing them here first, before removing the fact tags. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 00:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Alliance Airways flags

Why is the flag for Alliance of the United Nations when it is based in Brisbane? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.47.188 (talk) 13:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've amended to the Australian flag unless someone can give a good reason why it should be otherwise?? Nothing against Alliance but there is NO way they have 50 aircraft! It's about 12 or so, give or take a few. Can anyone source the actual number?MEBpilot (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page on the airline says 15, sourced to the airline's website. I think the confusion may be that the yfly mainly Fokker 50s! Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Should Pacific Blue have it's own entry??

Should Pac Blue have its own entry or be included under Virgin Blue... I'd say it's own because Jetstar has its own entry. MEBpilot (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree as the Qantas entry (I assume) includes JetConnect in New Zealand and Qantas Link in Australia. Also the Air NZ entry includes (I'm assuming again) Air NZ Link subsidaries as well as the Zeal320 subsidary. If Pacific Blue was to be broken out, then we would need to do the same with Qantas and Air NZ. Coming back to your point about JetStar my thoughts are that Qantas seems to operate JetStar as a separate brand with their own website. This is different to Qantas Mainline, JetConnect NZ and Qantas Link AU since are all operated as a joint brand. James Pole (talk) 06:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

sparrowman's error

For some reason sparrowman seems intent on inflating the size of the QANTAS fleet. But the source he replaced the official government one with shows even fewer active aircraft = 129. To reach his figure of over 200 he is including stored and historical aircraft. Let's keep to the most accurate figures possible, which are the aircraft on the Australian register as operated by QANTAS, and which at this time number 134. HtD (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There was never a error there was in fact a large discussion already about this on please see that as it is accurate.

I don't need to go over an old discussion. This is a current issue. Please explain why the maths don't tally, as explained above. If you can't do that, please leave the entry alone. HtD (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was that if we should count all Qantas subsidiaries as a whole as what is on the Qantas page this was also discussed on the main site. Why do I have to prove it to you anyway.Sparrowman980 (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

We will be taking this across to WP:AIRLINES. As to why you have to prove it to him, because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which does not allow for original research. If you are going to use a source to add information to this encyclopaedia, then they must be reliable sources (which airfleets is not), and all information must be verifiable. Additionally, articles are built on the basis of consensus and no-one owns any article. Also, it a policy of this encyclopaedia that one is supposed to be civil. All of what you will find at WP:FIVE is why you have to prove it to Htd. --Россавиа ^Диалог 18:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wear is WP:AIRLINES I have not seen ANYTHING from them also you have failed to prove me wrong on my statements i have provided many refs were are yours? Sparrowman980 (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

My statement above "But the source he replaced the official government one with shows even fewer active aircraft = 129. To reach his figure of over 200 he is including stored and historical aircraft." has neither been challenged by you, nor have you provided a source that states that over 200 aircraft are on the QANTAS register. The source simply does not support you. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have now referenced and sited everything and they are all correct.Sparrowman980 (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, now the numbers add up, although some might dispute the self-published nature of the source. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This issue has now been raised at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines#Inflation_of_Qantas_fleet_numbers. Continue discussion there. --Россавиа ^Диалог 04:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

References

Unreferenced total passengers

I have removed the section completely, due to it not being referenced. When references can be provided, it can be added back. Here's the table as it stood. --Россавиа ^Диалог 15:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

By Number of Passengers

Rank	Airline	Passengers carried	Revenue
1	Qantas	24,950,000
2	Air New Zealand	11,700,000
3	Virgin Blue	7,592,892
4	Alliance Airlines	6,456,000
5	Jetstar	4,641,000
6	Macair Airlines	3,765,000
7	Air Niugini	3,564,000
8	Air Pacific	596,285
9	Norfolk Air	426,985
10	Air Tahiti Nui	28,000

Subsidiaries

We should have subsidiaries because the rest of the projects have them and it look as if this page is lazy.Sparrowman980 (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Concensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines#Inflation_of_Qantas_fleet_numbers is that subsidiaries are not included, and the inclusion of subsidiaries on other pages are nothing but 'mines bigger than yours' type arguments, hence why they were all nominated for AfD many months ago. --Россавиа ^Диалог 09:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

For me it is very simple: If an airline has its own AOC then it is a separate airline, no matter who owns it. For example, in the case of United and Ted, all Ted flights are operated by United Airlines crew flying under the United Airlines operating certificate, and therefore Ted's fleet and other stats should be included with United's. In the case of QANTAS and Jetstar, Jetstar uses its own AOC (taken over from Impulse) and so is a completely separate airline, owned by Impulse Airlines Holdings Pty Ltd, of which QANTAS happens to be the majority shareholder. So they are separate airlines and they have separate stats. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with qantas but with the fact that most of these airlines own the other airlines 100% but people contiunue to change it.Sparrowman980 (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I just used QANTAS and United as examples to show the difference. Please address the issue of AOCs. It seems pretty obvious to me that if an airline has its own AOC, it is a separate airline, no matter who owns it. Lufthansa is Lufthansa and Swiss is Swiss, despite the fact that the latter is owned by the former. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be pretty content with going either way. I think the way it's done on List of largest airlines in Asia would probably be better as quite a few Oceanic airlines are a "group" and at a glance this may present the them as smaller than they actually are and presents a whole lot of other problems (see below). But listing each airline separately would be fine also, as long as it was consistent through both charts. It also brings to question is QantasLink a brand or a subsidiary, ergo, how should it be listed and then if QFLink is, is JetConnect, etc., etc., etc. If it was a question of a few planes, maybe it wouldn't be such a big deal - but it's a question whether to include seventy planes. Whichever way it is done, it should be consistent through out all of these "List of largest airlines in x" Mvjs (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If QantasLink has its own AOC (for example it is operated as a franchise by another airline in the way Colgan operates CO Express branded flights for Continental) then it should be listed separately, whether or not QANTAS owns 100% of it. If it is just a question of putting a different livery on the plane and offering different service levels on board, as United did with TED, then it should be included with the mainline operation because they are using the mainline AOC. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

QantasLink isn't even a company; it's a brand only; hence it doesn't have its own AOC, with all flights operated by Eastern Australia, Sunstate, National Jet and Alliance. Eastern Australia and Sunstate are wholly owned subsidiaries of Qantas. National Jet and Alliance are not owned by Qantas. --Россавиа ^Диалог 19:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not just Qantas this also involves the fact that airlines clearly state how many they have the have in there fleet, but people continue to put there own facts and think they are correct.Sparrowman980 (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Answer the question about AOC Sparrowman. If an airline has its own AOC, then it has its own fleet. Swiss has its own fleet separate from Lufthansa even though Lufthansa owns Swiss. If it is correct to list Swiss's fleet separately from Lufthansa's, then it is correct to list separately the fleet of any airline that has its own AOC, no matter who it is owned by. Harry the Dog WOOF 18:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, the regulatory authority is the most authoritative source there is. And this pushing of Groups, not only on these articles but on ALL airline articles needs to stop; it is not encyclopaedic, and is more suitable to sites such as airliners.net --Россавиа ^Диалог 19:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand but regulatory authority is for those planes are registerd in that region not ALL airlines are registerd to that certain area. My problem is that people continue to change stuff when we KNOW the facts and but people continue to change it and make false accusations. Sparrowman980 (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess Sparrowman has no answer to the AOC question, so can we assume consensus that if an airline has its own AOC it is listed separately in all statistics, including fleet size, passengers carried, destinations served etc.? Harry the Dog WOOF 07:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

With concern to the AOC certain Airlines fit in the area and some do not the problem here is that if we change how things are done like if we see the fleet with 222 on there site, but we choose not to include Jetstar that means that for the other largest airline projects they also HAVE to be changed. What we must do is figure which airlines are 100% owned and operated and then we can add them.So with the case to Qantas we must also add Qantas Link which is whole owned and operated with Qantas and we can then add them to the numbers.Sparrowman980 (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean? Either an airline has its own AOC or it doesn't. Where is the problem? If it does, as in the case of Jetstar, then it is separate and listed separately. If it doesn't, as in the case of TED, it's operations should be listed as part of the airline under whose AOC it flies. It's not complicated. What you are saying is that Swiss should not have its own entry because it is 100% owned by Lufthansa. That is clearly a nonsense. The easiest way to make sense of it is to go by AOC. An airline is only an airline if it has an AOC. Harry the Dog WOOF 18:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

So we can say that we should put together airlines if they are 100% owned. If they are not then they should be seperate. This has to be done to all the lists also. Sparrowman980 (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No, what I am saying is that if an airline has its own AOC it is a separate airline, no matter who owns it. If it doesn't, it should be included with the airline under whose AOC it flies. Harry the Dog WOOF 07:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Now how can we tell the AOC of the airlines?Sparrowman980 (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well if you don't know how to find out whether an airline has its own AOC I wonder what you are doing editing aviation articles so heavily. For example, here is a list of AOC holders in the UK. Each country's aviation authority will publish a similar list. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Air New Zealand Fleet size wrong

Air New Zealand Does not fly 49 aircraft —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.215.137 (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If you mean it flies 99 aircraft, to maintain consistency the subsidiaries of all airlines on this list are counted separately to the mainline fleet. There is Air New Zealand; and then there is Air New Zealand Link, which includes Air Nelson, Eagle Airways and Mount Cook Airline. All are separate entities with their aircraft registered to these entities. Jetstar and other subsidiaries are listed separately to Qantas; Pacific Blue and V Australia are not included in the Virgin Blue total; and Air Link and Pel-Air are not counted in the Regional Express total. YSSYguy (talk) 10:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You said in your comment that you did not include Jetstar to Qantas as it has a different livery and logo, but Mount Cook, Air Nelson and Eagle Airways all have the Air New Zealand koru on there tails so if they have the same livery, they must add to the fleet size. Also if you go on to the Air New Zealand wikipedia page you will see that there fleet size says 98 including subsidiaries. The Fokker F27 that is written in the comment has been sold by Air New Zealand to Christchurch International Airport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.210.186 (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I said that Jetstar and other subsidiaries were listed separately; it has nothing to do with what livery each airline is decorated with, but the registered operator of the aircraft and/or whether there are separate AOCs. QantasLink and Jetconnect aircraft have the same livery, but are not included in the Qantas total. If you check the references given, you will see that the Air New Zealand subsidiaries are separate entities. The ATRs are registered to Mount Cook, the Dash 8s are registered to Air Nelson and the 1900s are registered to Eagle. Furthermore, the F27 is still registered to Air New Zealand for some reason, which is why it is mentioned in the notes - it comes up in the search results but is obviously not in ANZ service. YSSYguy (talk) 03:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I beleve that you sure do make a fare point mate and I will leave it at that. By the way the F27 aircraft is currently parked at Christchurch International airport and has a yellow tail. But still i think the subs should be part of the Air New Zealand fleet as the airline is currently owner of the Link Fleet. Also I had a look at you photos YSSYguy on your page and I think you have some very nice photos, well done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.210.186 (talk) 05:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of 100 largest law firms by revenue which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)