Talk:British Airways/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

A350

Please note that a Memorandum of Understanding with Airbus is not an actual order it just means that further talks (and IAG board approval) need to take place before the actual order is placed. Suggest that this is not added to Fleet table until an actual order is signed, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Even if it was an order, we don't know if it is for Iberia or BA. So it shouldn't be listed in any case. --JetBlast (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Just reverted this again. --JetBlast (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear from Airbus' press release that the agreement is intended for BA. They have 18 orders and 18 options, and it is stated that should Iberia's financial situation improve then some of the options may be converted for Iberia. Either way, this is still only a MoU so it should probably not yet be included.^[1] Eddyegghead (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed the A350 order again - editors keep using references from 22 April which as discussed is not a firm order, no Airbus or British Airways press release since and not on Airbus order list. MilborneOne (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

To be honest i gave up reverting this. Nobody seemed to take notice. I wish we could protect a section in an article. --JetBlast (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

References

^ http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/pressreleases/press-release-detail/detail/iag-and-british-airways-select-the-a350-1/

Fleet and Fleet Operated

I think this section is well overdue for an overhaul. I would propose changing the "Aircraft Operated" section "Retired Aircraft". I would then suggest removing any currently operated aircraft from that section and putting the information on the year it was introduced into the current fleet table. This way we also remove unnecessary repetition and make the article more concise, in line with Wikipedia guidelines. The current article effectively has the fleet table listed twice, and this seems pretty pointless. Thoughts on this? Eddyegghead (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, go got it and be bold :-) --JetBlast (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

My God, no controversy!

I'd hate to suggest that phone calls in the middle of the night traced to B.A. employees were made, threatening customers who were about to take legal action ... oh wait, that DID happen! I'd hate to go on about predatory practices against Virgin ... oops, that happened too! Looking at the Ryanair page, obviously this is xenophobic tat rather than an online Encyclopedia. Or maybe it's that Ryanair have taken over some *ahem* failed airlines ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.125.53.141 (talk) 04:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry it is not clear what you are going on about but suggest you have a read of History of British Airways. MilborneOne (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Copy edit, August 2013

I am copy editing this article in response to a GOCE request made by User:Cloudbound. I have made prose changes for grammar and style, and I've rearranged the text a little bit. The following points are items I have questions about.

Is the "British Airways Group" the same as "British Airways"? Is it a former name of BA, or a government agency, or what? I can't tell from the article. The article says the boards of BOAC and BEA were combined "under" BAG in 1972, but BOAC and BEA were only dissolved in 1974. That's confusing to me, and I think it could be explained better. Also, the lead says BAG was established "to control the two nationalised airline corporations", but I'm not sure what that means. (It sounds as if they were out-of-control before.) I think a different word should be used to replace "control", but I'm not sure what's appropriate.

I cleaned up several captions, mostly for punctuation and consistent grammar. Notably I dramatically reduced the caption for the Concorde G-BOAD image. (It was five times longer than other captions.) If the record-setting Concorde flight is notable in this article, any detailed information should instead be given in the text.

I changed "Virgin's reputation in the City" to "Virgin's reputation in London". If London is not what was meant, feel free to overwrite my change with something accurate and specific.

The direct quotes "dirty tricks" and "unreservedly" need citations immediately following. The immediate source is the BBC "on this day" article, but that source uses quotation marks as well, and I'm not sure where their quotes come from. (This is likely to be an issue if this article is made a Featured Article Candidate.)

Consider dropping the final paragraph from the "History" section, since the most important material is covered in the "Branding" section, and the rest seems borderline-unencyclopedic.

I don't think "Overview" is the right name for the subsection of "Corporate affairs" that deals with an office location. But honestly, I'm not sure what the right name would be. In fact, it might be better to merge the tiny "Overview" section into "Operations", which also talks about BA's main base at Heathrow.

The "Industrial relations" section seems to stop abruptly in 2010 with suggestions of an immenant strike. So what happened? A concluding sentence would be nice, saying if there was a strike, whether tensions have since cooled, or whatever.

The "Destinations" section is too short to be its own section. Either more information can be added, or the information could be merged into "Operations". The "Partnerships and codeshare agreements" does not belong under "Destinations", and I personally don't think this list is appropriate in the article at all. Many of these partnerships were already mentioned in prose where appropriate.

The "Fleet" section discusses a 2007 purchase of 36 aircraft, usually it uses the past tense, but some parts use the future tense (e.g. "The Boeing 787s will replace fourteen of British Airways' Boeing 767 fleet"). Since the order was made in 2007, hasn't this already happened? If so the tense is incorrect... but new sources will need to be found to support claims of what actually happened.

In my opinion, the "Fleet" section goes into unnecessary detail about exactly what orders were placed when. The section should describe what aircraft are currently in use, with some mention of how previous purchases affected this, but it currently reads like a detailed history section. (E.g. "On 1 August 2008, BA announced orders for six Boeing 777-300ERs and options for four more as an interim measure to cover for delays over the deliveries of their 787-8/9s.") I did not proofread the second half of the "Fleet" section, since it is not clear to me how much of it should simply be removed.

In my opinion, this article relies too heavily on tabloids such as the Daily Mail. Often, the same facts could be supported by more reliable sources. If you plan on nominating the article at FAC, this should be dealt with first.

I don't believe any of the material in "Seating policies" is notable in an article on British Airways. I have not copy-edited this brief section, since I would recommend instead that it be removed.

I don't know whether it's more correct to say "narrowbody" or "narrow-body", but only one spelling should be used.

A list format is not appropriate for the "Incidents and accidents" section. Instead, I would recommend a new article be created called something like "List of accidents and incidents involving British Airways", and that article should be included as a "main article" hatnote for the section. Then an introductory sentence or paragraph should be written for the section, and brief descriptions of the more important incidents should be converted to prose. I have not copy-edited this section because it is unclear how this will be handled.

I have now finished proofreading this article. I will keep this page on my watchlist, and I am available for any questions or comments you may have. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to work through the article. I'll start working on it based on your suggestions. Cloudbound (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment - list format is established practice for accidents and incidents sections of aircraft, airline and airport articles. No need to alter this here. Insufficient amount of Wikinotable accidents to justify a stand-alone list. Mjroots (talk) 06:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for that information. Since the list is an appropriate format, I have proofread that section as well, and have two further questions as a result, below. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The text says "Flight 9, a Boeing 747-200, G-BDXH, City of Edinburgh flew...", but I'm not sure what that means. (I'm not as familiar with aircraft as many of this page's editors.) It seems like it could be reworded or split into two sentences, but I'm not sure how, since I don't know how G-BDXH or City of Edinburgh fit into the sentence.
- If this needs clarification to the general reader, it could be reworded and corrected to "Flight 9. operated by a Boeing 747-236, registration G-BDXH, named City of Edinburgh..." Mjroots (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the 2 August 1990 incident, the reader immediately wonders what happened to the passengers and crew. Were they released?

Thanks again, – Quadell ^(talk) 15:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

British Airtours

No mention at all of British Airtours? Seems a serious omission to me. Mjroots (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

737 fleet

The section on the 737 fleet needs amending from 19 to 16 aircraft in service. Three aircraft G-DOCH, G-DOCU and G-DOCV have been withdrawn from service and are currently being scrapped in Victorville California. BA still have these machines registered but they are permanently withdrawn from use.

One source - http://www.jethros.org.uk/fleets/fleet_listings/ba_boeing_b737srs.htm

Many other sources are available 19:53 28 November 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.222.176.90 (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thats OK if they are scrapped they will be deleted soon from the CAA register and we can adjust the numbers, sites like jethros are not really reliable. This is an encyclopedia not an enthusiasts website so we can wait for a reliable reference. MilborneOne (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

With respect Jethro's is the most reliable and accurate source of information anywhere for all UK airfleets, and is widely regarded as such by industry professionals. If Wiki is not prepared to allow adjustments which are fact, and not merely "enthusiasts" information then I shall give up my new found hobby of helping Wiki out. Would a picture of G-DOCU in bits convince you? 22:08 28 November 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.222.176.90 (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Jethro's is a self-published site created by an enthusiast so not really reliable in wikipedia terms. Sorry to say images are not reliable sources for wikipedia either. Your contributions are welcome but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an enthusiasts site so it doesnt have to be updated every day as long as the information we have is reliably referenced. Aircraft that have been reported as withdrawn and in-storage have actually been returned to service in the past. G-DOCU is owned by BA and not leased so it just might take them a while to catch up with the paperwork. That said if we had a reliable source that it was withdrawn and was not going to return then that could be added as a note in the fleet section. MilborneOne (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

And is your rule is if the aircraft is still registered on the CAA website it is part of the current fleet, then why are the Concorde aircraft not listed as part of the current fleet as they have not been deregistered? 22:19 28 November 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.222.176.90 (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure where you have been looking or why you think they are still registered, certainly the CAA thinks it cancelled them, but just for your information:

G-BOAA De-registered 4 May 2004 as Permanently withdrawn from use
G-BOAB De-registered 4 May 2004 as Permanently withdrawn from use
G-BOAC De-registered 4 May 2004 as Permanently withdrawn from use
G-BOAD De-registered 4 May 2004 as Permanently withdrawn from use
G-BOAE De-registered 4 May 2004 as Permanently withdrawn from use
G-BOAF De-registered 4 May 2004 as Permanently withdrawn from use
G-BOAG De-registered 4 May 2004 as Permanently withdrawn from use MilborneOne (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Flight 762, on 24 May 2013

Should it be added to the article? It is in the article "Accidents and incidents involving the Airbus A320 family". I think it should be added to this article.Maodi xn (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The consensus at the time was that this was not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

South African accident December 2013

I see this has been added but cant see it as particularly notable, aircraft do hit things all the time. MilborneOne (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The wing was damaged, but unless the aircraft is written off (I don't believe that has been established yet), then I'd agree it's not notable. It does happen relatively regularly and isn't usually mentioned due to WP:AIRCRASH. SempreVolando (talk) 12:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

BA Holidays

BA Holidays is redirected to this page. But there is no mention on-page of BA Holidays. BA Holidays is is represented on the http://www.britishairways.com/ site. This appears to be an omission (either BA Holidays is a subsidiary, or a product, either way it deserves a mention). BA Holidays is one of the largest resellers of Hotels4u.com accommodation. FreeFlow99 (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

British Airways Holidays is a subsidary of British Airways that deals in package holidays it is one of many subsidaries that dont get mentioned but it not notable to the core activities to get a mention here. If it is really notable in the package holiday world then it could have an article in its own right then but I cant find anything that shows it is particularly notable. MilborneOne (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

1234

ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasun77 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Fleet total

When I add up the totals in the fleet table, it comes to 297. The official total according to the CAA is 293, and I have doubled checked totals there for each type. It all matches up with what we have. What's gone wrong? Cloudbound (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. The A380 and 777-200ER fleets were overstated in the table by one and three aircraft respectively. It has now been corrected. SempreVolando (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Cloudbound (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Credit union

The credit union was established as British Airways (UK) Employees Credit Union, so it is fair to mention in this article. Feel free to edit or move, but please do not just delete without discussion. 2.27.78.13 (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

BA 2276

OK, as BA 2276 at Las Vegas has been added and removed, it's discussion time. The aircraft was substantially damaged. Obviously it's too soon for an official decision, but the aircraft is in its 17th year of service. This makes it a likely candidate for a write-off and thus notable enough to be included in the aircraft, airline and airport articles, although probably not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Pinging Lukozade123, SempreVolando. 84.78.18.251, 14.199.169.224, Maldahleh00, MONGO, 70.26.139.251, MilborneOne and Aumnamahashiva, who have all edited the article today. Mjroots (talk) 07:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

pinging Aumnamahashiva as I messed up first ping. Mjroots (talk) 07:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The photo does indeed seem to confirm substantial damage - and yes I agree a likely write-off, but without reliable confirmation of either we shouldn't be pre-judging at this stage. What we know now is an engine fire followed by evacuation with no fatalities, and that is a scenario which has happened several times before and which does not warrant inclusion. I think it may be wrong to add the incident at this stage without reliable sources for substantial damage / write off. SempreVolando (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I think SV has summed it up correctly its the hull loss that is notable not the fire and evacuation. MilborneOne (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

With the creation of the article on the flight today, followed by an AfD that was speedily kept, it looks like the accident is staying for now. It can be revisited should the aircraft be repaired. Mjroots (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this is time to note that the "writeoff" criteria is a good one for Wikipedia as it is fairly easily defined at least in the long term - but is at best uneven - damage to a 17 year old plane is much much more likely to be a writeoff than a six month old plane. I suspect in evaluating inclusion or not the age at writeoff is an issue that needs to be considered. I would like to see a criteria such as - damage that would write off a mid aged plane or somesuch. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Fleet figures

I've noticed the official total according to the CAA is 293 (that ignores the hot-air balloon registered to BA), but can't see which type should have one extra in the fleet table. I counted the A320s and ended up wildly over the figure we have. G-INFO is currently intermittent, but if anyone could have a look and see where that extra aircraft goes, that would be great. Thanks. Cloudbound (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The A320s should have been 66 (possibly was missing the delivery of G-GATR to Gatwick recently. MilborneOne (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on British Airways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121102054517/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4896070.html to http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4896070.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2016

This edit request to British Airways has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The A320NEO orders should be changed from 10 to 20 & A321NEO orders from 7 to 10 due to further orders being made/firmed

^[1]

References

^ http://www.airbus.com/company/market/orders-deliveries/?eID=maglisting_push&tx_maglisting_pi1%5BdocID%5D=105035

Clarkee808 (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Done Class455fan1 (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2016

This edit request to British Airways has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

New CEO and Chairman Alex Cruz Pedrosoares (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Total fleet at April 2016, the six 737 conflict

I checked out the six 737 registered in "United Kingdom Civil Aircraft Register" at the fleet of British Airways and all are stored.

G-DOCV is stored in 10/2013

G-DOCU is stored in 08/2013

G-DOCH is stored in 11/2013 actually Scrapped

G-DOCS is stored in 06/2014

G-DOCE is stored in 02/2014

G-DOCG is stored in 12/2013

Sources: http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?catid=1&pagetype=65&appid=1&mode=summary&owner=british%20airways%20plc&pageIndex=5 http://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/British%20Airways-stored-b737.htm

I checked out the 747 fleet and now the number of 747 in active with British Airways is 39.

The number of 777-200ER increases to 46.

Total fleet at April 2016: 264 --Cuentaprueba10 (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Only the CAA aircraft register is regarded as a reliable source for fleet information (airfleets.net / planespotters.net etc are not). The article makes it very clear that the fleet information relates to the registered fleet, with appropriate annotations from the other reliable source (IAG financial updates) on active fleet discrepancies, updated quarterly. SempreVolando (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The annual report of IAG of 2015 indicates that there is no 737s in the fleet and indicates that are 40 747s, when in fact there are 39, the report indicates that there are 5 787-9 when actually in April 2016 there are 7.

This soucre is not updated, but if you stick to the report, make your duty and do not cheat or tricks to add fleet.

Acording with the IAG report British Airways has or rather, had 263 aircrafts:

Airbus A318 2
Airbus A319 44
Airbus A320 66
Airbus A321 18
Airbus A380 10
Boeing 747-400 40
Boeing 767-300 12
Boeing 777-200 46
Boeing 777-300 12
Boeing 787-8 8
Boeing 787-9 5

TOTAL 2+44+66+18+10+40+12+46+12+8+5=263 --Cuentaprueba10 (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

You have to remember this is an encyclopedia and not a daily-updated fan boy airline web site, the CAA website is a reliable source for aircraft registered to British Airways. The fact some are no longer operated has been added using the IAG sources, but remember the fact that they are stored (and can in theory be brought back into service (it has happened)) is not that important for an encyclopedia. Plenty of aircraft spotter websites keep daily records of this sort of thing but it is not what this article is for. Also note that the fleet list doesnt have to be up to date just reliably sourced. MilborneOne (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that a fanboy is someone who adds to the total fleet aircrafts that are stored since more than 3 years or directly scrapped. It is funny that someone name a reliable source a page for the simple fact that is the best for him and his intentions although he knows that does not indicate to the information required by the title: CURRENT fleet.

airfleets.net is an exceptional soucre, reliable, updated and secure. But you prefer the annual report of IAG, I stick to the report as you are asking for, and the result is a fleet of 263 aircraft--Cuentaprueba10 (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Airfleets.net is not a reliable source. MilborneOne (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Which fleet website is reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.96.60.1 (talk) 05:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The airlines own listing, the relevant aviation authority and the listings in the likes of Flight. MilborneOne (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

But some website like planespotter.net,I think that website is reliable ,but some people say no.Some of the airline listing didn't update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.146.92.244 (talk) 03:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 30 June 2016

I just wanted to link the mention of the CEO Alex Cruz to his home page Álex Cruz (businessman) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PurpleCamel (talk • contribs) 12:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

linked. MilborneOne (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British Airways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2016

This edit request to British Airways has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Gameplayer2340 (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on British Airways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Revenue Figures

The infobar revenue figures say GBP 11,421 billion (GBP 11.421 trillion, which is higher than the UK's GDP). I'm sure it's a mix-up between "." and ",".

I suggest we avoid the European convention of using "," as decimal point, at least in the English version of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btarunr (talk • contribs) 04:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2016

This edit request to British Airways has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Boeing 737-400 was retired from the fleet in 2015 and should not be showing in the current fleet section Helloagain2222 (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Flag carrier

Regarding this [1] edit, which has been reverted, I've added a source. It is not up to us the editors to define what a flag carrier is. We should only stick to what reliable sources say. I've followed a basic policy so the matter is solved.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it was removed again. I've re-added it, with a second source. Anxietycello (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2017

This edit request to British Airways has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

On 7 February 2017, British Airways Flight 804, an Airbus A319 G-EUPM, skidded off a taxiway at Billund Airport, Denmark. The aircraft was disembarked in situ with no injuries. 217.45.98.128 (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Fleet & seating

A couple of points:

1. In the historical fleet table, the 737-400 is listed as having operated from 1997-2015. You can see on multiple sources, including AirFleets.net, that the first aircraft (G-DOCB) was delivered on 16-Oct-1991, with all sisterships being delivered within the subsequent three years.

2. Seating data contains a mix of old and current information. For example, 132 seats is what the A319s used to have. They are now configured with 144 seats or 143 (in the case of the ex-bmi). The A320s and A321s also have the higher configurations listed -- except five ex-bmi examples of the latter. 747-400s are also down to just two current configurations. And the seven remaining 767-300ERs all have the 259-seat European mixed class layout. The 192-seat layout was phased-out in 2016 when the last of the long-haul 767 fleet was withdrawn.

3. For the latest fleet and seating data for BA, see The BA Source ^[1] which has a very high level of accuracy - errors do not go unnoticed for long.

Regards, M.J. Gainza — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.52.246.210 (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

References

^ http://thebasource.com/

Director

This edit request to British Airways has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

please change ((Director)) to ((Director (business)|Director)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.154.31.58 (talk • contribs)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Cabins and services

There are quite alot of anomolies and out of date sections regarding the cabins and service offerings. FYBOG (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

IT Outages

There is no section about the common IT outages that British Airways usually has:

In what section should these issues be documented? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.155.89 (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

None really - on balance of the forty odd year history of the airline it is not noteworthy. MilborneOne (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Removed recent addition - we cant add every power outage since 1974 per WP:NOTNEWS. MilborneOne (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: - I disagree, have been watching this over the weekend and noticed that you removed an earlier addition. It is a major incident that has affected BA over a number of days. Some estimates are that this could cost BA £300M. A mention in incidents and accidents is now warranted. There may even be mileage in a stand-alone article. Mjroots (talk) 05:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, other IT outages mentioned by the OP are not worth mentioning here, but are possibly worth mentioning as a background in a stand alone article covering the events of 27 May onwards. Mjroots (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment it is clearly more than just a simple power outage which would have been unlikely to cause such disruption unless all the backup systems failed as well. MilborneOne (talk) 08:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

CEO admits backups did fail in interview with BBC. There is case history of airlines going out of business for loss of IT service. I visited Comet House, 1990. BA had 3 massive diesel generators to back up power. I believe these were removed. "Incidents" are about more than just aircraft fatality. Share prices in EU reflect confidence, compensation liability, cost of initial repairs, future investment. A reported "brain drain" of key IT personnel, questions regarding Outsourcing of IT services, and career of CEO will be in the spotlight. Beyond this are costs to public and business beyond BA. This could easily run into more than just the 5 or 6 lines given here to an air crash. David Crayford (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Willie Walsh is quoted by BBC as saying an engineering contractor disconnected the power. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40159202 David Crayford (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Revenue 1000 times too much

The 2015 revenue figure should be 11,000 million, not billion. The link to the pdf annual report is broken, but it can be found be google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.241.243 (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2017

This edit request to British Airways has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change billion to million in the 2015 revenue figure. 109.158.241.243 (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

No, billion is correct as per the annual report listed as a ref. Woody (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not; this is copied and pasted from OAG_AnnualReport2105_160302.pdf:

 PERFORMANCE
 £ million 2015 Higher/lower
 Revenue 11,598 -1.0%
 EBITDAR 2,252 +19.4%

So that's 11 billion. 11,000 billion is completely impossible - that's 11 trillion, several times bigger than the whole UK economy.

The correct figures are also in the table lower down:

                        2008 2009 2010 2010 	2011 	2012 	2013 	2014 	2015
 Turnover (£m) 	8,758 	8,992 	7,994 	6,683 	9,987 	10,827 	11,421 	11,719 	11,333  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.61.67 (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Done Have also updated the revenue to match the 2016 report. Alternatively could use a period instead of a comma and leave it as 11.443 billion. Cannolis (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on British Airways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131023061754/http://www.allrailjobs.co.uk/article/eurostar-restructure-sees-uk-expand-rail-stake-5377.htm to http://www.allrailjobs.co.uk/article/eurostar-restructure-sees-uk-expand-rail-stake-5377.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aeroworldnet.com/1tw10189.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2009/07/10/askthepilot326/index1.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.upgradetobritishairways.ba.com/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100607112956/http://www.england2018bid.com/news/223/ba-part-of-2018-world-cup-history.aspx to http://www.england2018bid.com/news/223/ba-part-of-2018-world-cup-history.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

British Airways 747-400

British Airways only have 36 747-400s,can editor edit it?

The CAA source still says 41 on the AOC. MilborneOne (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

current fleet

^[1]

References

^ https://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/information/about-ba/fleet-facts. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Is the net a reliable source?The CAA source didn't update the 747-400 fleet size,I promise there was only 36 in active.

The fleet facts expect 757-200,Embarer170,190.

The CAA source is OK and so would anything from BA, please remember this is an encyclopedia and not an airline fan site it doesnt have to be up to date just reliable referenced. Also note that websites rely on amateur sources and sometimes dont get it right, we can wait. MilborneOne (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

But the fleet title you must check in fleet,because 5 not in service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planelover19970704 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 19 March 2018 Incidents and Accidents addition

First incident on list, BA Flight 870, occurred on 22 November,1974. change In November 1974 to...On 22 November 1974, Source:Aviation Safety Network 11/22/1974 hijacking description for specific date. Thank you and have a good day.2601:581:8500:949C:E4CB:5DC1:570C:FD0D (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2018

This edit request to British Airways has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Incidents and Accidents:In November 1974, change to...On 22 November,1974..Source:Aviation Safety Network hijacking description 11/22/1974 for specific date.Thank you for your time.2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC) 2601:581:8500:949C:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Done I presume you mean https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19741122-1 as the source. In the future, your edit requests will probably be responded to more quickly if you include the link yourself. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2018

This edit request to British Airways has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The page has an incorrect reference, within the history (section 1) paragraph 2, sentence 1, it links you to Northeast Airlines, when it requires redirecting to Northeast Airlines (UK) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Airlines_(UK) MegaFlyCraft (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Done with thanks, NiciVampireHeart 19:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

British Airways 5390

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Article mentions that the co-pilot in British Airways 5390 returned to flying due to the trauma he sustained. This is incorrect; Alastair Atchison is reported as having went on to fly for Jet2.com and made his last flight as captain in 2015. Sources: http://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-sunday-post-inverness/20150705/283412010361332 https://flyinginireland.com/2015/09/jet2-com-announces-significant-investment-in-additional-aircraft/

I have removed the statement, this sort of detail should be in the linked article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Fleet info needs to be updated

British airways recently took their 3rd delivery of the A320neo on June 7th 2018, reg G-TTNC Crispy crisps (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Links to the wrong Iberia. Should be the airline and not the Peninsula.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Very specifically in the second paragraph of the of Subsidiaries and shareholdings the link to Iberia is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberia and it should be replaced with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberia_(airline). There are many other links to Iberia throughout the page. This seems to be the only case where this mistake has been made.

Done —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2018

This edit request to British Airways has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Trident introduction to service was April 1964 (Jackson, A.J. British Civil Aircraft since 1919, Volume 2. London: Putnam, 1973. ISBN 0-370-10010-7.) 86.188.101.241 (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

~~Thanks it has been corrected.~~ MilborneOne (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake the 1974 date is when British Airways inherited the Tridents, the first deliveries were to BEA. MilborneOne (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Seat Counts

I just want to document there that the seat count revisions by CBG17 are wrong. This is plainly evident from consulting either http://thebasource.com/ or the BA board on Flyertalk, which are much better sources than an airline website known to contain several other inaccuracies and out of date information. I do know that were I to attempt to use these sources to document a reversion to my edits, I'll just get wikilawyered because they're self-published sources. I have no desire to waste time arguing over this, but I do want to document where the correct information can be found for anyone who actually attempts to use Wikipedia to get correct, up to date information. Mordac (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mordac: The airline's official website with the seat configurations is more of a reliable source than an unofficial page, you haven't even used these sources to support your changes which is why they were changed. CBG17 (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Fleet Counts, the CAA Website, and Synthesis

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) G-INFO website does not create a link to a search result, and as such it is impossible to directly link to the results of a query. However, I would argue that is it frivolous wikilayering on Andrewgprout to argue that because a user is required to perform two reproducible steps, namely, filing the advanced search fields of 'Registered Owner' and 'Aircraft Type or Name' with 'British Airways' and 'BOEING 787-8,' that this constitutes original research. The output even numbers the aircraft, although since SYNTH is not numerical summarization, that would not have been a problem anyway. I don't understand why this article is such a magnet for this kind of behaviour, since as far as I understand, Andrewgprout is not disputing the accuracy of the information, merely that it does not conform to their interpretation of policies. I would respond to that simply that if the interpretation of the policy is one that actively prevents me and other proactive users from improving an article by adding undisputed facts, then that interpretation cannot be correct. Mordac (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC).

It is not the role of Wikipedia to be more up to date that the sources. If the second source had said this is British airways nth 787 all would be good, adding 1 to another conflicting reference is synthesis and there lie dragons.Andrewgprout (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with using an official website to support this information, I am not sure why you think the Civil Aviation Authority could be unreliable. MilborneOne (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted my edit back to the previous - I misunderstood Mordac edit summaries - It appeared to me that he was trying to adjust the totals counter to the CAA reference, I was mistaken and agree that the current detail is what the database says. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Please take care you removed an unrelated change I had made when reverting. MilborneOne (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2018

This edit request to British Airways has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

BA's A321's are now 218 seats instead of the claimed 199 (yeah i know, not a lot of legroom). Please change 199 to 218 in the Y column of the fleet table for A321. The aircraft that are 23J and 131Y is still valid

Source is from BA website fleet facts. States up to 218 passengers 152.115.85.138 (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2019

This edit request to British Airways has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

All 199 seat Airbus A321's are now 218 seats. Change 199 to 218 Thomo11 (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

BOAC liveried 747-400

Is there anyone able to get a photograph of the 747-400 that has been reliveried into BOAC colours. It's operating BA117 from Heathrow tomorrow, and is due to operate a Heathrow-Chicago flight on 20 Feb. Mjroots (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I have only seen one image so far but it is not free to use

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1124/img_20190218_103120_234778fb38a2e7fe549ef4011a98b660dbe29948.jpg Still nice to see the speedbird back if only for a short time. MilborneOne (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

We've got about four years of it

. Mjroots (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2019

This edit request to British Airways has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

BA Fleet list- one also painted in Negus livery. 90.254.13.134 (talk) 09:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2019

This edit request to British Airways has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Leppy139 made a misplaced edit request on his own talk page for this article today. Please look there for the request text. --2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: The original request was to the Current fleet section and read The Airbus A350-1000 is currently being operated by British Airways. The notes show it is "Entry into service in 2019[143]" which is not correct.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leppy139 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC) Danski454 (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Done I've removed the note as the first has entered service. (per reference 132 in the sentance before current fleet) --Trialpears (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Club Europe

Worth adding D/R cabins under the fleet section? Lack of J implies no domestic club. Also worth adding food/drink is complemntary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8B0:CB0E:A1B6:F1AB:A6EA:6886:3552 (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2019

This edit request to British Airways has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

A321 seat number incorrect: http://thebasource.com/aircraft/a321/ All bar the 4 ex BMI 23J mid-haul are 218 seat now.

A320 (non neo) also has a 180 seat aircraft http://thebasource.com/aircraft/a320/. The 168 seat will be upgraded to 180 (IAG Capital Markets presentation: https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2016/11/04/british-airways-join-ten-across-club/). The 177 seat all based at Gatwick (10 frames). http://thebasource.com/aircraft/a320/

A319 144 seat are all based at Gatwick (10 frames). http://thebasource.com/aircraft/a319/ 92.8.179.196 (talk) 07:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Not done: First of all the BA Source is not considered a reliable source and secondly seat numbers are not encyclopedic content and should not be included. I've removed the unsourced seat numbers from the article. --Trialpears (talk) 11:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

787-10 Seat Config

British Airways have now confirmed the number of seats on the 787-10 and their config. 8 First 48 Club ‘suites’ 35 WTP 165 WT

Making 256 total seats on the aircraft. Eynsham91 (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Heathrow slot percentage

"Heathrow Airport is dominated by British Airways, which owns 40% of the slots available at the airport.[54]"

According to the link below it was 52.6 per cent in 2016. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7455173/British-Airways-monopoly-Heathrow-flights-inflates-return-fares-80.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:6200:8851:8F28:498C:A908:56:9A64 (talk) 07:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The 'Business trends' section requires updating

The 2018 and 2019 key trends should be added to the table under 'Business trends'. Currently, the key trends up to 2017 are being shown.

2018 annual report:^[1] 2019 annual report:^[2]

Dellaoc (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

References

BA Temporary head office location

If somebody is trying to find Technical Block C on a map, https://www.britishairways.com/assets/pdf/Map_and_Direction.pdf indicates that the technical block is on Vanguard Way.

This is currently a temporary head office for BA but it may become permanent if Heathrow's third runway is built over Waterside (building) WhisperToMe (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Factual errors in section on marketing

The existing article has the following passage:

The musical theme predominantly used on British Airways advertising is "The Flower Duet" by Léo Delibes.[125] This, and the slogan "The World's Favourite Airline" were introduced in 1989 with the launch of the iconic "Face" advertisement.[126] The slogan was dropped in 2001 after Lufthansa overtook BA in terms of passenger numbers.[127] "Flower Duet" is still used by the airline, and has been through several different arrangements since 1989. The most recent version of this melody was shown in 2007 with a new slogan: "Upgrade to British Airways".[128]

There are some factual errors and some updates required.

1) The Flower duet theme was first used in 1984. An ad from that year is preserved on YouTube, though it's not clear whether this is the first or second use. Howard Blake, the arranger, confirms 1984 as the first use (^[1])

2) The slogan 'The world's favourite airline' was introduced in 1983 by Saatchi and Saatchi, the year in which they took over the BA account. See visual evidence in https://londonairtravel.com/2019/08/28/british-airways-100-years-the-worlds-favourite-airline/

3) Certainly it is true that 1989's 'Face' ad was iconic. But it is unrelated to the previous two items.

4) The Flower Duet is still in use, but we are now in 2021, so the most recent version in fact dates from 2021. It seems a bit pointless to mention this. The slogan "Upgrade to British Airways" may now by added to the list of other slogans.

5) British Airways has not used 'The Flower duet' "predominantly" – actually they've used a range of themes over the years, and had a gap of about ten years between 2009 and 2020 before coming back to it recently. It would be fair, however, to say "The musical theme most commonly associated with British Airways is 'The flower duet'... etc".

Mufflethrug (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

References

^ https://www.howardblake.com/music/Verse-Prose/662/WALKING-IN-THE-AIR-CAN-BE-DANGEROUS.htm#bio_44

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2021

This edit request to British Airways has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This article starts with 'British Airways (BA) is the flag carrier of the United Kingdom.....'. I would like to submit a request to update this line to say 'British Airways (BA) is a low cost airline and the flag carrier of the United Kingdom....'

I have two articles (referencing the same source) from reputed aviation experts that justify this change. Please see below 1) https://viewfromthewing.com/airline-ceo-calls-british-airways-2-out-of-10-low-cost-carrier/ 2) https://onemileatatime.com/qatar-airways-ceo-british-airways-low-cost-carrier/

Let me know if you have any questions. Azharshaad102991 (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with your requested edit. I think you are misinterpreting the sources. Al Baker is criticising BA standards and comparing it with low cost carriers to make his point. Mark83 (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Not done: I agree with Mark83. Even if those are the words that the source used, putting them into the article in this way would be severely twisting their meaning. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Flag carrier

As BA is a private company, it should not be called a flag carrier. It used to be UK’s flag carrier before it’s privatisation. Gk1g12 (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

It doesnt have to be government owned to be a flag carrier. MilborneOne (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)