Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Airports and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WT:AIRPORT WT:AIRPORTS

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20Auto-archiving period: 60 days

Aviation: Airports Project‑class

This page 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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This page is supported by the airport project.

Aviation WikiProject
General information
Main project page (talk) Announcements and open tasks (talk) → AfD record (talk) → Article alerts → Maintenance (talk) → New articles (talk) → Resources (talk) Notability and Style guide (talk) Showcase and Popular pages
Departments Assessment (Log) (talk) → B-Class / A-Class → Instructions Collaboration (NB: Inactive) (talk) Outreach department (talk) → Current newsletter → Contest (talk) Peer review (talk) The WikiEagle (talk) → Current issue
Project organization Coordinators (talk) Members (talk) Portals Project banner (talk) Project category (talk)
Templates Infobox templates → Aircraft begin infobox (talk) → Aircraft occurrence infobox (talk) → Airline infobox (talk) → Airport infobox (talk) → Aviator infobox (talk) → Company infobox (talk) Navigation boxes (talk)
Sub-projects Aircraft project (talk) → Engines task force (talk) → Rotorcraft task force (talk) Airlines project (talk) → Defunct Airlines task force (talk) Airports project (talk) Gliding project (talk) Aerospace biography task force (talk) Air sports task force (talk) Aviation accident task force (talk) Military aviation task force (talk) Soviet aviation task force (talk)
v t e

I assume that each ICAO airport code is unique; even if they double-assigned a code by mistake, it should be easy to discover the error and (eventually) rectify it. However, we have two articles with code YCHK. Could someone look into the situation?

• Graeme Rowley Aerodrome, in northern Western Australia, has the coordinates 22°21′20″S 119°39′8″E / 22.35556°S 119.65222°E / -22.35556; 119.65222. YCHK redirects there.
• Christmas Creek Airport, in northern Western Australia, has the coordinates 22°21′15.5″S 119°38′31.1″E / 22.354306°S 119.641972°E / -22.354306; 119.641972. YCHK is mentioned there twice.

As you can see, the coordinates are for the same place, but each article mentions the other in a disambiguation hatnote. Rowley links this page from Airservices Australia, which gives the name "CHRISTMAS CREEK", an elevation of 1454 feet (same as the Rowley article), and 22°21′21″S 119°38′33″E / 22.35583°S 119.64250°E / -22.35583; 119.64250. Christmas Creek links this page from "Great Circle Mapper", which gives a very different location (18°53′S 125°55′E / 18.883°S 125.917°E / -18.883; 125.917) and elevation of 125 feet (same as the Christmas Creek article). But the source doesn't look reliable. Has someone accidentally treated one airport as two (perhaps one was closed, and the other was built nearby and given the same code?), or has someone accidentally attributed one's information to the other, or what? Nyttend (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)][reply]

Being active in documenting aerodromes in the broadest sense of the word, but normally only in Europe, I couldn't resist taking a look. Figure my surprise when looking at https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=-22.355556&mlon=119.652222&zoom=15#map=15/-22.3597/119.6418 - obviously a total mess. Sure enough there is only one single aviation terrain! And just for the sake of nitpicking, I do not think the place meets our definition of an airport - airports are where airliners go, by and large. So yes, some cleanup is in order, both in our here Wikipedia and in OSM. Jan olieslagers (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After a second look: perhaps the airport descriptive is justifyable, I see images of airliners operating there, likely on charter from the mining operator. My suggestion would be to keep the Christmas Creek Airport entry, since it corresponds closest to the official data from Airservices Australia. The other article ought to be removed, after transferring its relevant info. I will proceed to update OSM accordingly, but am hesitant to touch the WP articles, since I am on (for me) "terra incognito". Looking forward to other voices chiming in! Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content at the Great Circle Mapper reference in Christmas Creek Airport seems completely wrong. The information at Graeme Rowley Aerodrome seems more correct, based on the Airservices Australia documents: 1, 2, 3, 4. The name they use is "Christmas Creek" though, so the articles should probably be merged into Christmas Creek Airport. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, merging the articles is the way to go. After all, the assumption right at the beginning is correct: ICAO codes are unique and unambiguous, though they are sometimes re-assigned to a new aerodrome when the original one closed. It seems obvious that such is not the case here. And, though some say we should use the "name most commonly used", for aerodromes I prefer to stick to what official documents say. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and at a third look: the articles do give one and the same ICAO code, yet they mention different IATA codes, which is perhaps the source of confusion. Have they been mixing up things at IATA? Again, local knowledge is in order.
CKW,Christmas Creek Mine,Christmas Creek Mine Airport
CXQ,Christmas Creek Stn,Christmas Creek Stn Airport
Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I noticed some of the airport articles have a destinations map in the Airlines and destinations section, for example, Appleton International Airport#Airlines and destinations. I didn't see any regulations about it in Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airports)#Airlines and destinations. Can someone explain to me when should or should not put the destinations map? It seems that the large airport articles don't have a destination map. By the way, is there any tool that helps generate it? Manually copying and pasting coordinates into Location map+ template is troublesome. Please {{ping|瑞丽江的河水}} to reply me. Xiliuheshui · chat 16:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent discussions about the maps can be found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 19. Sunnya343 (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunnya343: Hi Sunnya343, thank your for the reply. I am making an automatic tool that helps generate the destination map. I have a little question, when a destination is both seasonal and charter (airline A operates seasonal, airline B operates charter), but not regular, what type should be displayed on the map?--Xiliuheshui · chat 17:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best idea to differentiate between seasonal, charter, or daily service, etc. would be to have there be different colors and/or add dashed lines to further display the difference. Funforme3 (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Funforme3: Yes I think so. If an airline operates daily flights to a destination, we should absolutely mark the destination as daily on the map, whatever other airlines operate seasonal or charter. But if airline A operates seasonal, and airline B operates charter, no airlines operate daily flights, what should be displayed on the map, seasonal or charter? I think the priority is daily > seasonal > charter > seasonal charter > others (e.g. mining charter in Australia).--Xiliuheshui · chat 11:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see little use in mapping only the destinations - to do this seriously, one should map the destinations AND the routes. Different line types or colours for the routes can then indicate the level of service. A destination is not daily, a route can be. But, frankly, I do not think the idea should be pursued, it brings us too close to being a travel guide, which we do not want to be. Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong opinion on whether we should or should not place a destination map. My main goal is to provide a solution that addresses the issues of automatically generating and maintaining the map.--Xiliuheshui · chat 14:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you are addressing a problem that you are not sure to exist? Hm, enjoy yourself. Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read through the past discussions on including maps in articles, so I am unsure what the consensus is. In my opinion we should leave this task to websites like FlightConnections.com. Sunnya343 (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to make some useful tools during my programming learning journey. I noticed that previous talks pointed out that the destination map is difficult to maintain. It can also be used in WikiVoyage, if they provide the same map templates.--Xiliuheshui · chat 20:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see a use for having a route map for the airline pages. I don't see how this would turn into a travel guide but more of a visual representation of the airlines overall service and provide information to a reader who may not be as knowledgeable in aviation and just looking to learn about thr airline. A majority of people just wanna know where the airline flys to and don't want to have to download a seperate app or go to a few websites to get a map to show where the company operates. Besides Wikipedia is supposed to be a knowledge base of information.

I also want to add that recently I started cleaning up and reorganizing the different airline accident and incident sections on pages as some are in a horrible table format and clutter the page. See the American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and others to see what I've done to them. If we want to represent data and information, do it so as to not bloat the page and allow a redirect for more information about the topic instead. Funforme3 (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A destination map for airlines is a good idea, but due to the inconsistency of the destinations list in airlines' article, it is a challenge to crawler. Personally, as a reader, I would like to see a destination map in an airport article, but I don't want to debate whether it should be placed.--Xiliuheshui · chat 23:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yah that adds to the compilation of running such a map. Routea and destinations are always changing many sites maintain a map for stuff like that like FlightRadar24 but they only display upcoming and previous routes for 7 days so not always reliable. These would need to be updated at an airline specific map which then would connect to the specific airport page. It would be a huge undertaking but would be epic if done. It could be achieved using categories as well. Using Wikidata and creating a category for routes and airline routes it would be possible for the auto generation of a route list and connecting it to the airline and airport page. If anything it could be a tenplate for the pages but I personally wouldn't see it being something every airline or airport page needs or will have. I would still like it though. It would provide a valuable resource in understanding different airport and airline operational capabilities past their yearly reported data list that each page has. Funforme3 (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NAlso to note there could be some overlapping integration with OpenSky-Network. Like they keep a track of all flights and log the data and anyone with an account can go in and update aircraft/airframe data as well as add routes and fill in missing data. Could use their API to help populate and fill the routes/flights.

[1]https://opensky-network.org/ Funforme3 (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I notice there are a couple of unanswered comments about the accuracy of the runway labelling at Talk:Sydney Airport. Someone with subject matter knowledge should probably take a look to see if there is merit to them and reply either way. Thryduulf (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you look at airports hour by hour (UTC), there are two hours per day where Memphis International Airport is the busiest airport in the world. A pilot told me that Fedex has special permissions to fly with abnormally short spacing during the night when their cargo planes are the only planes using the airport. The Fedex superhub has no content in the body of the article with WP:ICs from WP:RS. It has been the busiest cargo airport in the world several years and is the busiest airport in the world for 2 hours a day. This airport needs some expert attention to beef its article up.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to discuss the listing of charter flights in Template:Airport destination list.

Listing a destination with "Charter:" gives the reader the wrong impression. Charter is a synonym for "hire" or "lease", as in a group chartering a plane.

In the United States, we've seen a proliferation of Part 380 "public charter" operators. These aren't a traditional charter restricted to a certain group. The plane is chartered from the operator by a marketer and tickets are sold, just like any public passenger airline. In several cases these two companies only exist on paper, but functionally, they're the same company. The arrangement allows the company to utilize pilots who are qualified to operate charter services, who can be either less experienced or older than allowed on commercial passenger flights.

In the case of these Part 380 "public charter" operators I feel we should either label them in the Airport destination list with "Public charter:" or not list "Charter:" at all in recognition of the fact that these aren't really charter flights in the traditional sense and are only operated under that naming to exploit a loophole in the law . -- RickyCourtney (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this is a US-only issue? Is it sufficiently noteworthy for a WP-wide rule or directive? Jan olieslagers (talk) 08:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think we should get rid of all destinations from airport articles. Destinations are not a property of an airport, they are a property of the airlines. Canterbury Tail talk 14:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's another discussion altogether. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, this is a US-only issue. But, as such, it impacts a fair amount of articles. When I attempted a bold change, I was reverted by @VenFlyer98 and asked to take the discussion here. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RickyCourtney:

Agreed this is pretty much a US-only issue. As I stated on your talk page, I only reverted as WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT states to NOT list private charters anyway, so anything under the “Charter” label would be assumed to be a public charter, thus not needing its own label.

Personally, I would be in favor of just removing the charter tag all together since, as you stated, they’re really just “charters” to exploit a loophole. Thing was, a few months ago, another user started adding charter tags to these airlines in the first place (airlines such as JSX didn’t have tags for a long time). A discussion was brought up (I believe in either this project or at WP:AVIATION as well as at Talk:Nashville International Airport where they were adamant about the tags. Forgot how many users overall were involved, but I eventually agreed to adding them (I did however feel that they weren’t needed for 135 carriers, mainly for the same reasoning as you have stated). However, I’d be in full favor of having the tags removed from Part 135 carriers for the reasons you mentioned initially if we reach a new consensus on it here. Think it should be left how it is or the tag should be removed all together.

One more thing, you brought up Part 380 carriers, but airlines such as JSX and Contour are Part 135, which is what the prior discussion I mentioned was about. You also added the tags to these airlines as well, but like I said I’d be in favor of just removing them. VenFlyer98 (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support removing the "Charter:" tag for the cases of the operators buying Part 380 "public charter" flights and them marketing them for sale. For reference, my notable examples would be Advanced Air, Blade, Contour Airlines, JSX, Southern Airways Express, and, if they win their FAA case, SkyWest. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand it correctly, Part 380 companies can sell tickets, but they don't operate planes. Part 135 operators are charter airlines that operate planes. If a Part 380 sells seats on a Part 135 airline, they can avoid the rules applied to Part 121 operators.

Honestly, Contour is the most opaque of the operators. But I think it works like this: when you book a flight with Contour, you are buying the ticket from Contour Aviation (the parent company of Contour Airlines), who then, on paper, charters a flight from Contour Airlines.

JSX is more clear cut: Flights are operated by Delux Public Charter, LLC (dba JSX Air or Taos Air), a Part 135 operator. Flights are public charters sold by JetSuiteX, Inc. as the charter operator and Delux Public Charter, LLC as the direct air carrier, subject to Part 380 regulations.

Good explanations from Cranky Flyer and this commentary from George Mason University. RickyCourtney (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RickyCourtney

Thanks for linking, those are great articles. It certainly is interesting to look at, such as the entire situation with avoiding the rules applied to Part 121 operators. Like I said, I'm good with removing the tags from these airlines altogether, including for Contour. I believe your explanation of how they work is spot-on, and they operate the least like a charter compared to the other airlines you listed (they also partner with American and offer codeshare flights hence why they pretty much exclusively fly from AA hubs). I found the old discussion on charter tags I previously mentioned, and honestly the discussion didn't really go anywhere. It was just one other user and myself and I agreed to it but there wasn't any big discussion or consensus between multiple users. That discussion was here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Archive 23#Part 135 Airlines as Charters in Destination Lists. After I agreed it just looks like the conversation died out so I wouldn't mind brining it up again or like I said, just outright deleting the tags. VenFlyer98 (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RickyCourtney:

I see you removing the tags, thanks for getting started. Agree if anyone challenges it for now, we can just direct them here.

Thanks for the discussion! VenFlyer98 (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I put the link in the edit summary to direct anyone with concerns here. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the reverts, didn't see this conversation until afterwards! Recommend getting rid of the "Charter" tag in the style guide if we agree to go forward with this. If it's decided to not use charter tags on airlines that are, by definition, solely charter operators (even if they operate in a manner similar to, though still different from, traditional airlines), then there is no need to have that tag at all.nf utvol (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nf utvol:

We shouldn't outright remove the tag altogether. As stated above, this is mainly a US issue, there are plenty of flights in other places of the world (mainly Europe) that have charter flights with reliable sources to back it up. Mind you, these flights also operate like regular scheduled flights, but are charters. Ricky made a great point above in regards to how most use Part 380 rules.

(VenFlyer98 (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

I recently deleted a list of former airlines and destinations in the Kai Tak article on the basis of WP:IINFO. Though I'm not sure it was fair to do so, because we have a discrepancy between our airport and airline articles: we list every current and former destination of an airline (e.g. List of Delta Air Lines destinations), but we only list every current airline and destination of an airport. Is this discrepancy justified? Sunnya343 (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Why not? One is about transportation hubs, the other is about corporations. The airline articles could be improved by saying when a terminated destinated used to be served or when a current one began. The airport articles could even have what airlines used to fly there. Of course, we've collectively made editorial decisions for each of these sets of pages to have a certain type of format that would be most helpful to readers, but tables on different topics may certainly have different formats, so I don't see a discrepancy. The Kai Tek article could indicate what airlines/routes flew there when Hong Kong Airport opened rather than those at any time, but I don't see that list as indisriminate either. Reywas92^Talk 20:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my view both are fundamentally the same: lists of airline destinations. One is by airline, the other by airline from each airport. For example we have a list of Delta's destinations and lists of its destinations from Atlanta, Detroit, etc. It's just two different layers of detail.

I don't think most editors would support a list of former A&D in airport articles. Someone once tried to add one to the CVG article and it got moved to the talk page. Sunnya343 (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]