Talk:United Airlines/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about United Airlines. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Why not list project Bojinka on the United Airlines page? If it went off, 8 of their planes would have been destroyed over the ocean on January 21 and 22 1995. I think it should be listed as the project was a potential threat to the airline and its customers. WhisperToMe 03:59, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I apologise for removing the Project details, it was my mistake. I agree the Project link, and brief details, should be in the United article.

Adrian Pingstone 09:12, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

PDX should not be listed as a focus city, as UAL doesn't provide service from PDX to cities other than its hubs.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Groeneman (talk • contribs) 16:58, 4 September 2005

It has feeder service by United Express carriers. Also, sign your entries. Dbinder 19:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I was not the original person to remove PDX as a focus city, but I think it should be removed. The important distinction for rising to the level of focus city is two-fold: first, are there an interesting number of mainline flights? (in PDX's case there are not) and second would UAL itself claim PDX as a focus? I think not. Los Angeles has alternated between focus city and hub over the years. I'd say that in order to be a focus city, you have to have hublike qualities. PDX is at best a "connecting point" that is something of a legacy of its orginal north-south route structure on the West Coast, and something of an expression of UAL's desires to have nationwide coverage, but is today a small anomoly not worthy of mention, unless you can show UAL itself claiming it as a focus KevinCuddeback 15:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Why aren't United Airlines' new logo pictured anywhere? The old gray/blue logo was replaced with a new all blue logo. vw12 November 13, 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.13 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 13 November 2005

The logo has not changed. Can you contribute a photo of the new livery under a suitable license? If not, we have to wait until somebody else does. - choster 20:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Narita (Tokyo) is NOT a hub! If anything it is a secondary/focus city even though UA technically does not have them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.128.172 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 15 December 2005

I am inclined to DISAGREE as my UAL training manual clearly states that NARITA is indeed a HUB. It states that "United has several hub and gateway cities...." and that the hubs are DEN, IAD, LAX, ORD, SFO, LHR, NRT and that the gateway airports (or focus cities) are HNL, JFK, SEA, MIA, EWR. All of those gateway cities have multiple destinations across the US other than hubs. Honolulu to San Diego is a good example. The Narita flights serve a lot of Pacific destinations stand alone. It is by definition a HUB! I'd love to photocopy the page, but I believe UAL wouldn't appreciate that. It would however stop all debate on this subject. Plain and simple. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bikrtc (talk • contribs) 12:31, July 12, 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I have no horse in this race. But after seeing the revert history, I consulted UA's 2004 10K, which indeed states that United Airlines has five domestic hubs, no mention of any foreign hubs. Moreover, the "About United" press release blurb reads "hubs in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, Chicago and Washington, D.C." So that is the management perspective. UA doesn't serve any domestic destinations from NRT, though they do have enough of an operation there that I as a non-professional would call it a hub--but is there any authority (FAA, IATA, ICAO, etc.) that establishes a standard for what qualifies? The current list (with the addition of SAT in March) is accurate enough, it's not as if we were still listing EWR and MIA.-choster 20:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I also took the liberty of removing Hong Kong as a focus city, because United doesn't seem to have any extraordinary service there. I'm tempted to remove Honolulu and JFK as well, since each only has one route beyond UA's hubs and focus cities, but those are tougher cases so might as well leave them. - Sekicho 21:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

HKG is a focus city. United serves multiple destinations other than their hubs from there. NRT used to be considered a hub by United, but I guess their service cutbacks have downgraded it to a focus city. Dbinder 02:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

..."multiple destinations" meaning Ho Chi Minh City and Singapore. Does two flights a day make an airport a focus city? Or, in the case of JFK, one (LHR)? Or in the case of HNL, one (KIX)? I'm kinda confused as to how we're defining things here. Sekicho 04:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Based on the discussion over at WikiProject Airlines, it seems that NRT is the only "focus city" UA currently has. Any objections? - Sekicho 19:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Didn't they recently add SAT as a focus city? J1729 20:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

- FWIW, according to the 2005 10-K, Tokyo is a hub. -choster 21:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, UA considers NRT a hub, lots of connections but i guess the 14 flights a day keeps people from opening their eyes to what a hub is. Fact is not all hubs need 300+ dailies. I'm not going to change the table as there will be no more focus cities for everyone to see, but HKG and SEA are...per UA. Whatever, someone who has the facts changes something for the better and some highschooler or enthusiast just changes it back. oh well. Fry1234, KORD

You might want to check the UA page again. HKG and SEA are never mentioned as "focus cities" by UA. SEA was only a "gateway city" to Asia and the Pacific. However, one can arguably say that Tokyo-Narita is a hub, depending on interpretation. --physicq210 06:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You're getting this from the UAL page? I work at UA in routes and planning, and we call HKG and SEA focus cities, and NRT a hub. Fry1234 07:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You might want to ask UA again. Their report unfortunately don't show HKG and SEA as focus cities, and Wikipedia can only use these sources. But bear in mind this report was in 2005, so it might be outdated. --physicq210 17:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

For United Airlines, a gateway city is technically a focus city of sorts, United does not operate focus cities a la Delta/American/US Airways and thus cannot have our definition of a focus city subject to the same categorization as the three airlines mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.216.170 (talk • contribs)

However, then SEA cannot be a focus city in a normal sense since SEA is mentioned a "gateway city" only to the Asia-Pacific market and not to the domestic market. Hence the designation is disputable. I see your point though. --physicq210 17:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I see your point about using public-domain sources, but when we work on SEA and HKG, we call them focus operations, solely due to the reason they connect and have FA domiciles. Well, the NRT-SEA flight isnt going anywhere. I really dont care if the page says SEA and HKG are focus ops, just wanted to clear it up. United has plans for HKG and SEA, which i wish i could discuss on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.216.170 (talk • contribs)

You can discuss here. BTW, sign your edits please by typing ~~~~.

Wait...what's with the "we"? Sorry if I sound rude. --physicq210 18:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

well, ive worked for UA 24 years now and work in routes and planning, and "we", meanign the department, call the cities focus operations. United and I are not we...come on...after taking paycuts like "we"...us employees did..United and I are far from chum. Fry1234 18:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I see your point. So the IP was you (or your department)? --physicq210 18:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

no, the ip is my personal, the IT department monitors that sort of activity and id get into a bad situation. fry1234

According to USA Today San Antonio is referred to by United as both a focus city and a "hublet" It boasts 12 non stop destinations from San Antonio International which is more than from any non hub city. These cities include New Orleans, Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Colorado Springs, and other destinations which are not United hubs. Passengers are also connecting in San Antonio which is a first for that airport.

This comes back to the discussion on whether focus cities/hubs for regional carriers should be included as focus cities for the mainline carrier (e.g. CO in BOS). The original decision was no. Dbinder 08:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't SEA a focus city of UA? It operates the majority of the flights out of SEA to UA hubs. Bucs2004 03:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You just contradicted your argument. If you didn't your argument doesn't make sense. SEA was never designated a focus city. --Physicq210 18:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

To settle this issue once and for all, SeaTac is not and was never designated a focus city. It is only a "gateway city" to the Asia-Pacific airline market. See for more details. I hate continually reverting people because of this misleading "SEA is a focus city" thing. --physicq210 06:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

How about this? --physicq210 05:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you work for United or have any authority to post what is or is not part of the airline's network? Am i missing something? I just want to know why you seem so "pushy" about what can be included on this page. About SEA and other focus ops, just cause it isnt specified in the annual report means its null and void? So back in 2000, when UA had over 100 daily operations into the airport, it wasn't a focus city?...weird, because i personally remember doing some of the scheduling for the SEA focus city, as it was called in meetings by people higher than me and many others. I'm not ridiculing you, so take no offense to this post. I just want to know why a high school kid is the "boss" of a page about a company with 80 years in business. Fry1234 05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I retract my above post. However, we debate what we have in the present, not about the glory days in 2000. And if it were not for your second-to-the-last sentence, I would have taken your above words as a vicious personal attack. --physicq210 05:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And one more thing, i see you've done lots for many different topics and i dont mean to criticize your age, as it doesnt matter. my son is in high school and the only reason i became a member on this site is due to the fact that he was doing a report on UA and told me to look at this site. i was just wondering as to why it seemed so hard to get a point across on this page. Fry1234 05:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean my stubbornness (yes, I admit it) or because of the edits of others? I won't care if you say it was the former. --physicq210 05:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"Vicious personal attack"? wow... okay... and 2000 was far from a glory year. Fry1234 05:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Still, we talk about the condition of UA today, not in 2000. --physicq210 05:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

you were kidding about the personal attack thing? i read my post over and over and i find the viciousness you say to be not included. Fry1234 05:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC) I know we talk of United now, and not in 2000, but SEA is a focus city until the regional connections leave.

Ok...I was exaggerating a bit. It wasn't vicious, but it can be considered a personal attack by many, even if you dont see it. --physicq210 05:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

by many? people on this site are that touchy? well, okay, this is silly, we are the only contributors to this page on a regular basis, by that i mean daily, correct? Fry1234 05:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Why did you retract your statement? your interpretation of the facts isnt flawed, nor is mine. just conflicting viewsFry1234 05:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Effects of a sleepy mind. >P --physicq210 05:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I see your point at how SEA is a focus city. However, Wikipedia has a guideline called WP:RS, which (sort of) requires reliable and readily assessible sources to be available to back a claim. It also has a policy called WP:OR, which bars original research from being used. I'm not saying you're wrong, but unfortunately you need to cite a source to back your side of the argument. --physicq210 05:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

oh, i understand where they come from with that. Fry1234 05:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Sorry, I didn't understand your comment. --physicq210 05:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

i was saying i understand where Wikipedia comes from with the readily available sourcing on subjects. Fry1234 06:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Fry1234 and Physicq210, perhaps it is time to cool off a little bit. Take a little bit of time off and get some perspective on this.. Its just an encyclopedia. Cliffb 18:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I spent some time wrangling the fleet chart. Its got some pretty extensive formatting changes. Usually I'd be a bit more bold, but I'd like feedback before moving it over to the article... Cliffb 18:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to put the new fleet chart on the main page

Aren't the 747s still sometimes used interhub. I know I flew a 744 from SFO to ORD (coming back from PVG) in 2003. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UAAC (talk • contribs) 23:11, 2006 August 12.

Not sure -- I just reformatted the information in the previous chart. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:cliffb (talk • contribs) cliffb.

I think the additions to the bankruptcy section by 67.163.8.43 should be reverted -- they're far too detailed and go beyond the scope of the article, and disrupt the flow. —Cliffb 07:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should be reverted. While the added information has lots of value, it's too lengthy, plus some of the information isn't correct. Fry1234 21:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Made the revert of just the bankruptcy section — Cliffb 23:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it necessary to categorize all the links in the external links section, or can we jsut consolidate them? --physicq210 18:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think given the number of links on this page, its helpful.. it might be worth doing some pruning though.. —Cliffb 18:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel that there are too many links compared to the size of the artice! I think if the links are going to be catagorized, then the other sections should be too! (74.119.16.75 01:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC))

I judged this article on 7 criteria:

Well-written: Fail
Factually accurate: Pass
Broad: Pass
Neutrally written: Pass
Stable: Pass
Well-referenced: Fail
Images: Pass

For an article to pass references, I look for around 20ish on most GA contenders. I'd almost look for more on this, but only because it's so long. Regardless, this article has only 1 ref, and that's not good enough. I also failed the well written requirement, for 2 things. The lead is poorly written, and does not summarize the article very well, and even though there are other articles linked to, I'd want the beginning paragraph to at least have a couple of sentences, rather than just the links. If these issues are resolved, feel free to message me on my talk page, I'd be happy to re-evaluate the article. --PresN 01:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

United Airline should purchase 747-8 so they can fly more routes farther and replace their very old 747's. The 747-8 is really more econmic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eclaw (talk • contribs) 22:02, 31 October 2006

Perhaps, although many of the 744s were delivered fairly recently. But Wikipedia isn't really a suitable to debate it; it's not a discussion site-- this page is specifically for improving the United Airlines article. Have you visited airliners.net? -choster 14:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

In addition to today's "activity", I have found POV addiotion on Dec. 6 of a similar tone. Check IP's beginning with a 6 especially (the ones I've seen so far have come from 67, 68, and 69). Thanks. - BillCJ 06:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I am a 10 year employee at United Airlines and I have insider knowledge as to what happened there. When I go and try to add FACTS to the articles someone comes and erases it. Is this person a UAL employee like I am? I think not. Why change what I am writing on there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TRIPxCORE (talk • contribs) 06:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Interestingly enough I see no edits of the article to your name if you are the Ip I keep reverting is because its unsourced and full of POV Problems. EnsRedShirt 06:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read the comments I emailed to you and put on the talk page for 68.104.59.118 --Matt 06:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

First-hand knowledge is considered Original Research on Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:No original research carefully before adding any new material. Thanks, - BillCJ 06:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I gave a source for my Summer From Hell contribution and now you still erase it on me! Wikipedia is biased and a fraud! - TRIPxCORE

I did not see a source on the last revert I made. Howev er, just having a source does not guarantee it can stay in either. It has to be credible and verifiable. - BillCJ 13:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If you saw the links above, which I will spell out for you (and add more), there are perfectly valid reasons why your edits were rejected:

Even though you claim you're a 10-year United employee, I can also claim I'm a 10-year United employee, if I so desire. It's important that "facts" are backed up by published reliable sources. Unfortunately, your insider knowledge is not enough. Unless you can find and cite such sources, your edits would have to be deleted. Tinlinkin 08:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

So where are the sources listed and cited for what has already been written in the UAL article may I ask? - TRIPxCORE

As a employee at United, which none of you happen to be, the veracity of my contributions cannot be disputed by any of you. None of you can come close to knowing the truth's that I know. Yet you haphazardly erase what I write and give a bunch of ridiculous reasons as to why you did it. So I go along with your ridiculous rule and find a source and still you erase what I write. Now I am told that just because I have a source that doesn't automatically guarantee inclusion!! First I needed a source and now I need one that can be verified by someone? By who, you? It's been made quite clear to me that Wikipedia kowtows to big business, is afraid to let the truth be known, is biased and a huge fraud! There isn't one piece of that UAL article that was already written before I got here that has a verifiable source attached to it. Now the rule gets implemented for me for trying to tell the truth. I will make sure to tell everyone what Wikipedia stands for and that if the truth is to be known, to avoid this place at all costs because it's biased! - TRIPxCORE

Again, I never saw a source for anything you added which I deleted, or I would have tried to look at the source first. Although there are 2 sources in the article, you are right that the rest does not have sources. However, to this point no one has questioned the validity of those sections or facts, so they have remained.

Anyway, I have added an "unreferenced" tag to the head of the article. This will let other editors know that they need to find sources for the article.

Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. If you have a stroy to tell, call up your local paper, TV station, or one of the national media outlets, and tell them what you've experienced. But this is not the place for first-hand knowledge. I have heard news reports about some of what you've talked about, so it probably would not be hard to find several printed or online publications about the topic.

Second, Wikipedia is community-based. All participants bear the responsibility to watch for things that should not be on Wikipedia. I know I have had material that I have added deleted by someone else as not being sutible for one reason or another, and I'm sure the other editors here have also.

Thanks. - BillCJ 23:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

- you are right that the rest does not have sources. However, to this point no one has questioned the validity of those sections or facts, so they have remained.

This is what you wrote to me. So who may I ask questioned the validity of what I wrote then? - TRIPxCORE

Ok, so now that it's valid let's work to incorporate the changes into the article. Last night when I read the changes to this article and Glenn Tilton, I could tell from the tone of the edits that it was put in by a frustrated United employee. So let's work on inserting the changes with a neutral point of view and an even tone. --Matt 00:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The only way to write the article is to tell the truth, which is what I did. It may sound harsh because the actions of that time were harsh. What I wrote is exactly the way it happened. I wrote it in a neutral way. I didn't go and say that the things were happening to me personally even though they were. I wrote it as an outside observer. I think it requires no change. Joe 00:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth. No verifiability has been provided, and you are venting at us? Please, calm down and discuss. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I already gave a "verifiable" source for the "Summer From Hell" contribution.Joe 02:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind repeating the source here for all of us to see? You added a lot of text last night, on well over 15 occasions, its hard to guess which edit the source is in. Thanks. - BillCJ 02:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-unitedday3-story,0,4838025.story?coll=chi-unitednavover-misc Joe 03:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the source:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-unitedday3-story,0,4838025.story?coll=chi-unitednavover-misc

Joe 03:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The biggest issue is the content itself. Despite there being a source, the entire paragraph was heavily biased. While it could certainly go in a newspaper - as someone mentioned - it doesn't fit in an encyclopedia. This should be facts about the airline, not complaints about management screwing over employees. If it pointed out objectively that pay was cut, employees stayed overtime, or something of that nature, it could probably stay. But right now it looks like a rant against the airline. DB (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

We need cleanup on the "travel classes" section. Big top 16:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think about 90% of it should be removed. The information is directly available from United. DB (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand this flag!?! There are only two 'citation needed' flags ... why would only two flags trigger the whole article to be discredited??? --Inetpup 06:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, 'This article or section does not cite its references or sources' doesn't discredit an article, it's much like a cleanup tag for needing references. There were a lot fewer references when that tag was added, but I believe roughly every paragraph should have a citation. For example, slogans, Friendship One, codeshare agreements, travel classes, the fleet table, new routes, and a few other sections need references. --Matt 21:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This sentence was removed by User:FCYTravis: 'However, the introduction of this service has created unbalanced load factors between the middle of the aircraft (Economy Plus), which is often underutilized, and the rear of the plane (UnitedEconomy), which often operate at crush load.' The reason given was: (rm nonsense sentence - the whole point of E+ is that it's a premium product over regular Economy offered only to those who have paid more or who have earned access through loyalty.)

I propose adding something that states that Economy Plus has caused UnitedEconomy to suffer ... United agents will only seat UnitedEconomy passengers in Economy Plus once seats have been exhausted in UnitedEconomy. This leads to the new UnitedEconomy being inferior to the old UnitedEconomy, which allowed for a more balanced distribution of passengers throughout the aircraft. In other words, United not only introduced a premium product (Economy Plus), but its introduction necessarily led to the downgrade of UnitedEconomy.--Inetpup 21:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

To express the opinion that it's caused a downgrade would require that we cite a source that's said that. FCYTravis 05:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Some guy changed the Incidents section. Do you agree that the table format is good? I think it kinda sucks. It hasn't even been discussed here. --Inetpup 23:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Inetpup, I suggest you change the section heading, as we should discuss the content and not attack the person. I prefer the old format myself. --Matt 23:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to offend a guy that's just an IP address. I figured he could handle it, so I just dished it out. --Inetpup 01:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's either the letter or spirit of WP:NPA. Or really civil. There are actually users who use IPs regularly and do pay attention to articles, an I'm guessing there's people behind them instead of intelligent bot nets... --Matt 02:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I made a slight change. --Inetpup 03:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Will others please respond regarding the corruption of the Incidents section. If I don't hear from you by Thursday, I'm gonna revert that section back to the old format!! In other words, if you like it the way it is, I need to hear from you. Otherwise, I'll 'correct' the maligned format. Thanks. --Inetpup 07:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the "classes" of Mileage Plus, because this is information available in their site, and is a promotion of the company, which is hard to keep track of, and also to avoid Wikipedia to become a free advertising channel for the company.200.222.3.3 23:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it because you didn't use an Help:Edit summary, so it looked like vandalism; however, I welcome a discussion of whether the section should really be deleted. Cheers --Matt 23:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree that the section was pretty marketing speak. Howabout something more like "United has a premium reward system for very frequent flyers which allows them free economy plus, a mileage bonus, and other perks." One sentence without much details? --Matt 23:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the section is appropriate, although perhaps it should be slightly condensed. It's not "a promotion of the company" to document its frequent-flyer program, and it's not "hard to keep track of," because substantive changes are very rare. The three-tier structure has been in place for at least 15 years, if not longer. FCYTravis 02:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Global Services modified to note that United does not publish qualification criteria for Global Services program, and that membership is by invitation only. There is no source to cited for the 50k requalification claim.70.6.214.49 01:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Should we just have a separate article on Mileage Plus--all this info makes the already long article way too long. Gb6819 15:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I also vote for the deletion of the section about the cabin, we're doing free marketing for the company!!200.222.3.3 23:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe convert to a table-format. I agree this whole thing sounds like an ad. Gb6819 15:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried to make it sound less advertisement-like. I, on the contrary to the two above, think it's a good part of the page as the information is valuable to me and [hopefully] other travelers... Sjodenenator (talk) 09:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a discussion at Talk:Delta Air Lines#Complaint Links about the removal of the links to the complaints bulletin boards (such as www.unitedcomplaints.com, these complaints bulletin boards are all from one company and have minimal information) from airline articles. I invite you to discuss this change there. --Matt 01:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What makes London Heathrow Airport a focus city? I just noticed this today. Actually, someone moved around the hubs, too. 10:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. It only flies to its Chicago-O'Hare, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington-Dulles hubs only. Heathrow is not a focus city for UA. Bucs2004 00:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Someone already removed LHR, too. 12:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the edits to this page, estpecially the first section should not be made every time there's a speculation on merger. There have been tons of rumors that have not come to fruition, and are not subject to inclusion in an encyclopaedic article. Every time the United management goes out to any conference, the following scenario occurs.

Mgmt: (talks for 1 hour about changes since Chapeter 11 and business plans).
Reporter: What about consolidation?
Mgmt: Consolidation is good for the industry; a merger may make this company stronger.
Reporter: (writes article folcusing solely on consolidation)

On the other hand, everyone editing missed the Aloha deal... Gb6819 16:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, false. --Inetpup 05:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:United mileagepluslogo.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 11:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to remove the recent news section on the article. Wikipedia is not a site for recent news. Some of the content in there is useful, such as the San Fransisco to Guangzhou route and LA to Shanghai and should be moved elsewhere in the article. But the article didn't even mention Silver Wings before, so is it important to mention its removal? Is the name of the chef designing first class meals important? I don't think it's even notable, the articles written were basically just reannouncing United's press release. --Matt 14:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have updated the "In Pop Culture" section to reflect that the setting for The Terminal is actually Los Angeles International Airport but is described in the movie as John F Kennedy International Airport. If you pay attention to gate the Tom Hanks takes up residence at, it is gate 69 which is one of United's gates at LAX (Martok527 00:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)).

I also updated the reference that stated Chris Tucker was a United Ramp Agent, to read he was a United Mechanic as is seen if you pay close attention to the jump suit he is wearing, and as United strictly differentiates Ramp (CG) and Mechanic (MM) employees (Martok527 00:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)).

Should we designate Honolulu International Airport as a UA focus city? I mean it does have flights to and from its hubs, non-hubs, and in Japan. Bucs2004 01:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

United is reconfiguring its three class airplanes. They are reducing the number of seats in first and business and (I think) adding seats in coach (possibly by removing some economy plus seats).

The first newly reconfigured 767 will fly on Oct 29 from IAD-FRA. It will have 6 first class seats, 26 lie-flat business seats, and 151 (possibly more?) economy seats. Newly reconfigured 747s and 777s will join the fleet at later dates. Anyone know what the numbers for these reconfigured planes will be and where can we fit that into the fleet size chart? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.179.54 (talk) 23:28, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen United's new business seats? It's entirely possible they're not changing the number of economy seats as the new business seats (and the first class lie flat seats on the 767) will take up more space. --Matt 00:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are the wonderful new seating charts: scroll down and look to the right:

Jendeyoung 20:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What makes Hong Kong a focus city? I just noticed this recently. It only flies to 2 non-hub cities (Ho Chi Minh City and Singapore) and soon to be 3 of its hubs (Chicago, San Francisco, and soon to be Los Angeles). Bucs2004 16:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm OK with yanking it. I've been searching around, and United makes no mention of focus cities on united.com or in its latest "Results of Operations and Financial Condition, Financial Statements and Exhibits" . --Matt 18:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Did any of you read the 'United Airlines -- Back from the Brink' article (on page 48, 12/2007 issue) of Air International Magazine? They used a great deal of information from our article that all of you contributed to! Some of it is almost word-for-word! Great job, given that they used us as a reliable source! --Inetpup (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well it is about time that an article on Wikipedia is recognized rather than scrutinized.--Golich17 (talk) 02:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The section about codeshare agreements seems to be rather short. For example it does not include UA's codeshare agreement with NZ (Air New Zealand). I'm sure there are many more which are not listed. James Pole (talk) 06:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

On the San Francisco International Airport article, a user changed the date for UA's SFO-CAN route to begins on June 18, 2009 instead of 2008. Will UA still fly on 6/18/2008 or has it been pushed back a year? Thanks! 74.183.173.237 (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The flight is indeed slated to commence in 2009 now; see "United Airlines delays San Francisco-Guangzhou route, cites oil prices".-choster (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Inetpup has been using the phrase "premature death" in the sentence "The premature death of Ted will furlough approximately 100 aircraft". I've been trying to change "premature death" to "closure" as I believe premature is a judgment call, not really suitable in the article. Could others weigh in on what appropriate phrasing here would be? --Matt (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this, Matt. The reason I like 'premature death' is because United tried to make Ted like a person. And this using this word choice would make it sound like a person died. It's just my preference of word choices. --Inetpup (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

But it's not neutral. Premature makes a judgment about the expected life of a spinoff. You'll not find an objective source backing the prematurity. --Matt (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I agree that the word 'premature' is POV. However, I think we should use word choices that are anthropomorphic when describing Ted (airline). So maybe we can keep 'death' and take out 'premature'. Thanks! --Inetpup (talk) 05:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it gets a bit kitschy for an encyclopedia to follow a company's lead on how to address its divisions. It's much more how a newspaper would do it than how an encyclopedia should do it. If United referred to Ted as a cat, I don't think it would be appropriate to say "Ted used up its ninth life last week." So I don't think we should be anthropomorphizing Ted, even if United did. --Matt (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, "death" is unencyclopedic and "closure" is more appropriate in this instance. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If United called Ted a cat, I would have preferred using the example you gave: Ted used up its ninth life last week. But that's just my preference. Oh well. --Inetpup (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

不滿 / 불행 / अप्रसन्न / nešťastný--Inetpup (talk) 04:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please expand the references on all subjects in this article. I've started tagging some questionable statements regarding the Strike of 1985, which is almost entirely unsourced. To maintain neutrality and to ensure reliability, all of these sentences need citations. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I am working on that now. I have added two links and will have more in the days ahead. EditorASC (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

For the past couple of days, anon IPs continue to re-add NRT in the infox as a UA focus city. Was NRT ever a focus city or did UA removed it as focus city? 74.183.173.237 (talk) 03:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I spoke with a UA representative recently who noted they consider NRT a focus city and SEA and HNL gateway cities. 67.170.104.140 (talk) 07:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"United has also showed no interest in the Boeing 787 Dreamliner project, also to help deal with current tough economic times, also affecting other major US airlines." Seems to me this is incorrect since UA is lobbying to become a GoldCare partner for 787 maintenance. 67.170.104.140 (talk) 07:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Added this point. Beevo (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have some one who keeps editing without a cite, that united express is ending service RDM-PDX... we just had capacity additions announced recently so it sounds kind of odd... anyways anyone have a ref on this? 72.0.187.239 (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Was noted as an issue. I moved much of the recent news to the Recent News section - it simply needs chronological organization now. 24.18.142.164 (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That phrase will return 7 million hits via Google. United says they are using this video as a part of their training now, so it is even significant to them. The video now has 6 million views. EVERY single major media outlet has reported on it including CNN, Fox, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, etc. Every blogger on the planet has mentioned it. The only reason this has not been included in the article is because some of the editors likely work for United. I cannot believe you have managed to even keep it out of the popular culture section of the article. Whoever you are that's keeping this video about United Airlines out of the article is pretty slick. Eventually Wiki will win, this major development will be indluded in the article and you'll lose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Erm, have you read the article? See the "recent news" section. GDallimore (Talk) 15:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This issue was discussed above at great length in June and July with the result that it has been included in the "recent news" section of the article for many weeks. Centpacrr (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Propose to remove the images from the fleet list, a non-standard practice which provides to small images to be useful and bloats an already full table particularly on small screen sizes. Comments ? MilborneOne (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agree Beevo (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed as there were no objections. Beevo (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. MilborneOne (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

A number of users are making updates to the fleet numbers based on what must be unsubstantiated information on airline fan websites. For instance, I've had to revert two separate changes which showed that the 737-500 has been removed from the fleet when it's still flying.

Please do not make such changes until the planes are actually removed from the fleet. Beevo (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Again I've had to revert an inaccurate change. Please stop making unwarranted changes. Beevo (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Should this be mentioned anywhere in the article? http://cr.yp.to/conferences/iadams.html If not, why not? Could a sentence saying something like "there are reports of problems with compensation for damage to baggage handled by UA [1]" I know the UA PR people won't like it, but is there a real reason not to include it? Mr. Jones (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope. It's not a reliable source or notable source. --Matt (talk) 03:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should mention that United breaks guitars, LOL. Sorry, couldn't restrain... man with one red shoe 03:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not encyclopedic material. Baggage is damaged everyday around the world and simply because someone put a video on YouTube does not make it notable. Beevo (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

But if media around the world report about it becomes notable. Usually the media does not report about damaged baggage or people uploading videos on youtube, but here they do, in the USA, Canada, other countries (here in Germany all the major newspapers report about this). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian.moritz (talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

and looking at other items mentioned in the article, this incident has received more news coverage and is of more signifiance than say Westin partnering with United. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian.moritz (talk • contribs) 19:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Because United is the online airline that damages or loses baggage...? This isn't a consumer advocacy site, it's an encyclopedia. --Smashville^talk 19:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

And because it is an encyclopedia we report about events that have received significant coverage in reliable sources. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me start by telling you that I have done 22000 edits, many of them on airline articles, since I began editing in early 2002. To edit airline articles I obviously have to read them (and often their discussion pages) so, after seven years, I do know what is OK in an article and what is not. These facts are given NOT as a boast but to show that there’s a strong chance I know what I’m talking about.

OK, so on to my point. I can assure whoever is adding the guitar stuff that it is absolutely not acceptable to detail an individual customers complaint. Of the many hundreds of airline articles I have read and edited I do not know of one that does so. This is an encyclopedia and such stuff looks very odd here.

It doesn’t matter in the slightest that there has been press publicity, it is Wikipedia policy to stay an encyclopedia and not to become a complaints site. Sorry, but that’s just how it is.

I have reverted this item three times I think, so can't do so again. It seems time to get an Admin involved to make a ruling. - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, what matters is that this incident has received significant press coverage, and that according to Wikipedia content policies is what matters. To say press publicity doesn’t matter in the slightest is plain wrong. Here the extensive press coverage is the reason why this customer complaint and not the millions of other similar customer complaints is mentioned. Whether this incident deserves a full paragraph is debatable, but given the poor state of the recent news section which has several items that are arguably of much less significance it should stay as it is for the moment. Maybe in a few months when someone is rewriting the recent news section in a way similar to the history section the inclusion can be assessed, by then it should be clear how important this incident was in retrospect (and the same should be done for the earth shattering cooperation with Westin or the sensational news about United ceasing a route to Tokyo and Mexico). 76.117.1.254 (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you read anything I wrote, because your reply ignores my points completely!! It is NOT WIKIPEDIA POLICY to include passenger complaints. Simple as that! We could fill every airline article entirely with passenger complaints so we choose to have none. I now give up, perhaps someone else can take action. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stay calm. I read your response, very carefully, and that is why I was stating Wikipedia policy, which clearly says that the main, if not the only criterion for inclusion is whether something has received significant coverage in reliable sources. We simply couldnt fill every airline article enirely with passenger complaints, because the vast majority of passenger complaints receive no or no siginifact press coverage. This one received significant coverage, so the only point worth discussing here is whether this press coverage is significant enough or not, as I argued above in my opinion it is, in particular in comparison to the other item in the section recent news. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(out) Coverage is not significant enough yet to warrant mention in this article; it would be undue weight. In other articles, that is different; for example, it has been added to the Viral video article and makes sense there (it's one of the few additions to that article that actually has a source). The coverage of the video is a somewhat big deal for the Viral Video article, but a very small deal for this article; it's simply not important enough yet. If the video caused sweeping changes to United's policies then it would be a big deal...but as far as I can tell, all it has caused is a PR rep to say "this will be useful for training". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Reading Undue Weight it applies only to opinion and viewpoints. This incident is neither an opinion nor a viewpoint. Besides, the huge media coverage across the globe makes this a big deal. Granted, it not the most important event in the history of United airlines, but looking at all the other news items in the list or the incident table with most entries not saying more than just the flight number, I cannot see how this is undue weight. If all the other items would be exclusively about important events such as bankruptcy or major air plane crashes I could unerstand that in comparison this incident pales. But that is not the case here. Maybe we should move this item to a new customer relations section, because this incident tells a lot about how the public perceives United Airlines (and other legacy carriers). —Preceding unsigned comment added by BoldFrontier (talk • contribs) 02:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This item seems appropriate for the wiki article on viral video where it is posted but not in the United Airlines article for the reasons stated above by Adrian Pingstone and others. In addition virtually all of the editors who keep putting this item back in the article are either IP editors with no other contributions to Wikipedia or editors who have registered winthin the past day or two to post this item with the apparent purpose of promoting this viral video. (Centpacrr (talk)

Those evil ip editors...and even worse those pesky new editors who dare to add recent events to articles. Maybe we should leave Wikipedia only to established editors with 22,000 or more edits. Could you please cite a reason based on Wikipedia's content policies why an incident that has received significant coverage in reliable source should not be included. Because "It is NOT WIKIPEDIA POLICY to include passenger complaints" is not exactly a valid reason. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually I am one of the editors that added the story after seeing removed several times, twice by an editor that only seems to edit the United Airlines article (Special:Contributions/Beevo). It is true that we do not publish customer complaints on Wikipedia, however as noted above, the vast majority of customer complaints do not receive international news coverage. I have never seen a policy that explicitly states do not publish complaints about a company/product/organisation. Hell, we have an entire article dedicated to Criticism of Microsoft! The fact that this incident has received media coverage not only in local press, but national and international means that its inclusion in the article is entirely justified. The original addition was poorly worded and rather biased, so I reworded it and added numerous references. This meets WP:V and WP:GNG. The incident has received significant coverage in reliable sources and should be included in the Sons of Maxwell article, the Viral video article and indeed this article. To exclude mention of this incident in this article would amount to censorship. Whilst such a topic is not suitable for an independent article, its inclusion in related articles is entirely justified. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

And the reason I removed it was because it was not notable in the way it was written and I did not believe it could be made notable. Having seen how it is now re-written, I know I am wrong because it surely seems appropriate the way it is today. Beevo (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I had also removed it a couple of times as well for the same reason as yourself and others. After it had been replaced again I rewrote it (see my earlier comment immediately below) to relate how the incident was used by the carrier to change its business operations which is the real story here. I hope this has satisfied the concerns of all concerned on both sides of the issue of its notability and appropriateness for the article. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC))

Item rewritten to show UAL's response to the publicity from the viral video as it relates to potential changes in its business practices as a result thereof and removed POV and promotional material relating to the claimant which have nothing to do with the carrier's operations. The information about the band, it's dispute with the carrier, and their promotional YouTube video is contained in the wikipage relating to the claimant (the band) where it is appropriate. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

I have to say, what is written now is a terrible compromise. It is a rewrite of some desperate United Airlines PR scrambling, that entirely misses the point. Of course they say they might use the video in training - that is a pathetically transparent attempt by a PR company trying to salvage a global media disaster by recasting the story. No newspaper would fall for this. There is a story, and it is relevant here. The story is that there has been a spectacular PR disaster for the company, that has even - according to some sources - affected their stock price. If every news editor in the world thinks this is relevant, then why doesn't wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whippletom (talk • contribs) 11:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've now made an edit to the effect of my previous comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whippletom (talk • contribs) 14:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverted to previous neutral language, which had been accepted previously by consensus, and eliminate speculation and POV introduced in the rewrite. (Centpacrr (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC))

Please explain what was POV or speculation. Everything written, which included "reported" qualifications, can be found in news sources around the world. It would be better to take this out entirely, than repeat a press release which, incidentally, really is speculation. You have no evidence at all that this will be used in any training - PR companies are paid a lot of money to write this sort of thing. If United's past advertising slogans can be included then this story - which has had a huge negative impact on its brand - must surely qualify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whippletom (talk • contribs) 15:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, remove the words "To help improve". You have no evidence that that was their motivation for making the statement. And "mishandled" is spelt incorrectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whippletom (talk • contribs) 15:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, my problem with this written as is, is we are reporting the reaction to a story - which is essentially corporate damage-limitation - as if it is significant, but we are not reporting the story itself. To someone coming to this page cold, and not knowing the incident, this would in my opinion appear very strange. To those who do know the incident, it appears unneccessarily coy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whippletom (talk • contribs) 15:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There are two footnote links to the item which takes the reader who wants to know the background to the DOT Report and news feature on which the item is based. I would be happy to have the item removed altogether which I (and several other editors) had done previously as it was essentially a story about a single baggage claim incident which the band then used to create a video that really just promoted itself through getting wide exposure. That is covered in the articles about the band and also viral videos as a means of publicity where it is appropriate,. As for the UAL article itself, however, it was never (in my opinion) that significant in the overall history of the carrier and did not belong in the article to begin with. The compromise version that I wrote about UAL's reaction was to keep it from being constantly used as a piece about a single baggage claim dispute which had been rejected because it was not been timely filed. (Centpacrr (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC))

You determine it is not a significant story - but every major news organisation in the world disagrees. As do shareholders. UAL's stock has plummeted - which makes this a very significant story indeed, irrespective of its origins. Anyway, my objection is that placing it in the context it is in the simple credulous regurgitation of PR nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whippletom (talk • contribs) 16:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope this won't be considered a salvo in an edit war, but I've changed slightly - whilst keeping the same form. I've removed the initial clause - which speculated about the company's motives - and split the sentence in two. Otherwise it's largely the same, and I can't see how anything could be interpreted as POV —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whippletom (talk • contribs) 15:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The expression the carrier used was "changing corporate culture" (see July 9, 2009, UPI story) which implies a company wide change in business policy as opposed to "staff training" which would seem to be a narrower and less significant response. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC))

Whether it's a "change in corporate culture" or "staff training" is irrelevant - it's still PR nonsense. Frankly, I can't see how my removal of that - rather than addition of anything else - can cause disagreement. I know we are meant to assume good faith, but your reversion (to what, by tghe way, is a massively-unwieldy sentence) just strikes me as straight petulance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.252.80.100 (talk) 09:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

And, by the by, this "non-story" has been covered - here in the uk - by the BBC, Channel 4, ITN, the Guardian, the Daily Mail, and is page 4 in today's Times. None of them, interestingly, covered it from the perspective of "United changing its corporate culture". All of them covered it from the perspective of "United very embarrassed indeed." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.252.80.100 (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason given by the carrier to the band for requesting to use their video was to employ it as a tool to help change UAL's internal "corporate culture" which is what it says in the available reliable sources directly quoting a representative of the airline. Whether or not you or anyone else finds what the carrier said to be either disingenuous or "PR nonsense" is interpretation, POV, and pure speculation and therefore not an appropriate basis upon which to reject it. That the film is an example of the impact of viral videos is a different topic which is covered in the Wiki article on that subject, and it is also more broadly discussed in the page about the commercial band where covering this aspect of the story is appropriate. How the carrier itself chose to use it to alter their own business operations is in the article about the carrier where that portion of the story is relevant. To clarify this aspect further, I have split the sentence in half with the references to the two sources attached to the appropriate new sentences. This, by the way, has nothing whatever to do with "petulance" but instead with neutrality in relating the information provided in the reliable sources without injecting personal speculation as to the motives of any party involved in the story. Centpacrr (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Forbes opinion piece and claimed "$180 Million" stock plunge

All of which would make perfect sense, were it not for the fact that the version I wrote contained no personal speculation and was entirely sourced in reputable news, all of which has completely ignored the aspect you're referring to. And I do consider it petulance to revert something as POV when it contains none, and is in fact just a slimmed down version of what was there before - which wasn't POV. Please highlight anything in this text - which you reverted - which was POV "In July, 2009, United requested permission to use a widely-viewed viral video produced by a Canadian band critical of the company, in its staff training. The music video recounted a long-standing damaged baggage claim that a member of the group had with the airline - who he claimed had broken his guitar."

Of course in an encyclopedia you can't make inferences such as a company's response being just PR - but you can choose to ignore it, as every news organisation in the world appears to have done. What is now written is better, but I find it completely mystifying that a story that is reported around the world, that gives United terrible publicity and lowers its stock price, is not something you consider important. Obviously the incident itself is irrelevant - but the coverage it has received, and the consequences from it (the least of which is the "change in corporate culture"), are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whippletom (talk • contribs) 10:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Large businesses get good and bad "publicity" every day, but to claim that this band's self promotional video has had a material effect on the bookings on, and overall economic health of, UAL is pure unsupported speculation. Do you know how many (if indeed any) bookings have been cancelled because of this video? Do you know how many (if any) bookings have not been made on UAL which would have otherwise because of this video? If you believe you do, where are the figures supporting this? Do you know of some public opinion poll that has been taken in which the effect, if any, of this video has been raised among UAL's customers? Have you considered whether or not United's bookings may actually have increased because the carrier has said that it is doing something to improve its customer relations regarding damaged baggage claims which, according to the DOT, are actually better than the industry average? Stock prices, especially in the airline industry, are volatile and driven by multiple and complex factors. Labor relations, fuel costs, cuts in business travel because of overall economic conditions, weather, government regulation, "computer" trading, etc, all effect stock prices. The transient reportage of this video has a lot more to do with coverage of entertainment and music industry than it does with that of that of the airline. To claim that this video was responsible for a "$180 Million decline" in the stock price of this carrier is utter "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" speculation. The fact is that the price of UAL stock has fluctuated between $3.30 and $3.79 for the last month and as of July 24 was considerably higher then where it was on July 9 when coverage of this story began. Centpacrr (talk) 11:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I've considered absolutely none of this. I don't have to. That would be original research. But other news stories have considered it, and they have made the link. That - according not least to comments you have made earlier - is what matters. Not my, or your, views. Of all the items in recent news, this has received far and away the most news coverage globally. So it seems arbitrary - to the point of bizarre - to leave it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whippletom (talk • contribs) 12:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? Honestly? Why revert? United's share price fell by ten percent. I just cited Forbes - the business bible - as blaming this video specifically for that fall. If a ten percent stock fall isn't significant United-related news, then what is? Honestly, help me out here? What was in was sourced, it was neutral, it was not POV. What is going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whippletom (talk • contribs) 10:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine...it's speculation. But it's not my speculation, and it was written in as speculation. Do you work for United? What is the criteria for entry in a page? Is it effect on the business? Is it coverage? If it's either, then this is a news event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whippletom (talk • contribs) 10:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not work for United and have no stock in the company. See my comments above. Centpacrr (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The Forbes story that you cite says nothing about the "guitar video" leading to a $180 drop in stock price. It is only mentioned, along with a number of other things, in the context of issues in developing brand loyalty. Centpacrr (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I'll source to somewhere as well that does mention it. Will that satisfy? Or will you find another reason to delete? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whippletom (talk • contribs) 12:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the Forbes item (which is, in fact, not a news story but a single writer's opinion piece about his personal views on a broad range of long standing business issues with the carrier including "brand loyalty") which DOES NOT in any way make the connection with the video that you imply...i.e., that this video caused a precipitous $180 Million drop in stock price. (See my comments above.) The price of UAL stock (as is the stock in most airlines) is relatively volatile for a wide range of reasons, and in fact closed HIGHER ($3.79) on July 24 than it was on July 6 ($3.34),the day when when the viral video first appeared on YouTube. You are trying to make a case about a relationship between stock price and some transient publicity relating to a music video which the objective facts DO NOT SUPPORT, and neither does the Forbes opinion column. The writer could have selected any one of thousands of customer relations incidents with UAL (or for that matter many other carriers) as examples of the issues facing the airline industry in the current economy.

In order to make your case you would need to answer the questions posed above with reliable, objectively sourced statistics to support it. (I sincerely doubt that any such research has been done, let alone published,) Simply partially quoting a single writer's speculation about what he thinks some people who might have viewed a commercial music video might think about booking with a particular carrier if they might be making a trip someplace, and then adding your own "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" speculation on top of that drawing a conclusion on what this might mean is unsourced and unsupported POV pure and simple. The bottom line here is A) the Forbes column is an opinion piece of a single writer (i.e., an "Editorial"), not an objective news story: B) it does not reference any peer reviewed research, governmental or industry reports, or any other sources, to support his conclusions, and; C) the one line you (partially) quote is clearly the writer's own personal speculative, rhetorical supposition.

As I said before, I am not now (nor have I ever been) an employee of either United or any other company relating to the airline industry. I do not personally own stock in UAL or any other affiliated or competing air carrier, nor do I have an interest in the success or failure of UAL as a business. As a professional researcher, writer, and editor with more than forty years experience, my only interest in my editing on Wikipedia is in providing objective and reliably sourced information. What you added is a inaccurate statement of the rhetorical speculation from an editorial by a single writer about a different topic (brand loyalty) which does not even make the case you imply that it does. Please do not add this false information again as doing so will put you in violation of the 3RR rule, Centpacrr (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not adding false information. I'm adding sourced information to two news pages. You might disagree with the information - but that is irrelevant. Find a news source that disagrees, and then add that on the end. That is how wikipedia works. The fact that newspapers are making these comments (and of course it's opinion I'm quoting from Forbes. That's sort of the point of it) and the fact that there are lots of them doing so is what makes it a story. Everything you have written above is your opinion. A lot of it makes sense. So find someone who agrees with you in a reputable source and add it in. Otherwise it seems deeply strange to ignore something, in the news section of the entry, that is the biggest news affecting the company this year. I add again NOTHING I HAVE WRITTEN IS PERSONAL SPECULATION. I have written two, sourced, sentences from reputable news agencies. The only reason you can have for removing it is if it is insignificant. Since it has been covered in every paper in the world, there seem to be a lot of people who disagree with you. You are as much beholden to the three revert rule as me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whippletom (talk • contribs) 15:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And if you want a hundred other news articles that make this link I can do it. Of course it's hyperbole, and of course it's not wholly accurate. But if this is written about in that many papers then it's worth putting in. Find the rebuttal and put it in as well. Since we're putting our own opinions on the talk pages - would you not agree that perhaps having your company written about in a negative light across all the world's major news problems might be a significant problem, even if no one has quantified to what extent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whippletom (talk • contribs) 16:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The Forbes piece it is not an objective "news story" but is instead a column used by the writer to advance his subjective personal "opinion" (i.e. an "Editorial") about the subject of United business practices with a definite POV as the title of the article clearly implies ("United Airlines Shows How Not To Run Your Business"), and that is exactly my point here. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, NOT an opinion journal. It was created to collect, organize, and offer up to its readers objective, reliably sourced facts. This piece is just one writer's personal views about this particular company's business practices are at a point in time, and the sentence partially quoted is no more than his own rhetorical speculation about how people who viewed a particular commercial music video might react to it in a hypothetical situation. ("It is doubtful that the millions who have watched Carroll's video or read Wang's blog will want to fly United anytime soon, unless they have no choice."). This is not remotely "encyclopedic" objectivity.

To my knowledge, Wikipedia has never adopted a policy that any and every editorial opinion ever published in Forbes and every other magazine, newspaper, book, pamphlet, etc, would properly be includable as encyclopedically meaningful just because somebody published it. If that were the case, it would result in editorial chaos and destroy any semblance of the project as an objective reference source. The idea of Wikipedia, in fact, is to weed out subjective opinion (i.e., POV). It should be noted that the writer of the Forbes piece you quoted, Shaun Rein, makes no pretense at journalistic objectivity as he is identified not as a Forbes' business writer but instead as the "Founder and Managing Director of The China Market Research Group" which is described as a commercial consulting group which provides "strategic market intelligence" to business clients that "they need to make smarter decisions in China."

As for the claimed "$180 Million" stock price drop, from October, 2007, until July 6, 2009 (when the video was posted on YouTube) the price of UAL stock dropped from a high of $51.60 to $3.34, a decline of roughly 93% over that period. From July 6, 2009, through the close of the markets on July 24, 2009, it rose from $3.35 to $3.79, for a relative INCREASE of about 13% over that period (July 6-24), or +0.8% against its high of October, 2007. Should I therefore change your language that "After the video's release, United's stock fell $180m in value - although it is difficult to attribute any change in stock price to one cause." to now read "In the 18 days after the video's release, United's stock rose $234m in value - although it is difficult to attribute any change in stock price to one cause."? Or do you suppose it would just be better to take it out altogether as a proof of the falsity of "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" in this instance. Neither one is meaningful, -- and neither belongs in Wikipedia as both are completely misleading. Centpacrr (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's POV, in the way you define it. That's the point. A viral video has been viewed by four million people, and affected their POV. But the statement of that POV is not a POV...if you see where I'm going. There has been a point of view, about the company, which has been widely disseminated. Recording that fact is not a point of view - it is a statement of fact. This is not one writer's view, it is the view of thousands of writers, reflecting the experience of millions of people. The facts surrounding the original baggage claim are irrelevant, the point is that four million people have seen the film and this affects their view. That is not - I think - controversial. And if someone from a reputable source reports on an event, reflecting a wider opinion, that is not against wikipedia's content rules —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whippletom (talk • contribs) 20:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The POV I am speaking about is that of the individual who wrote the editorial published by Forbes (a Shanghai based consultant for foreign businesses operating in China), not of the viral video. The fact that the video had a POV, what it was, and what the carrier did about it, is objectively reflected in the first paragraph of the entry on the issue with wikilinks to both the viral video article and the page on the band which explains it in great detail. I have rewritten the second paragraph to objectively identify the actual holder of the opinion on its hypothetical effect on viewers, and to also accurately reflect the fact that UAL's stock price actually increased by 13% in the 18 days after the video was released on YouTube (July 6) with a link to a primary source giving the daily activity and opening, high, low, and closing prices on UAL from July 6 to 24, 2009, inclusive. Centpacrr (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted both the Shanghai-based Chinese marketing consultant's personal speculation as to hypothetical "wants" of viewers of the viral video as unproven and irrelevant, and the 18 day UAL stock price fluctuations as manifestly meaningless in relation to release of the video. Centpacrr (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

As some have noted, United's (and pretty much all other airlines in America other than Southwest, Allegiant, Alaska, Jetblue, and Hawaiin) have had their stocks jump up 10-15% one day only for it fall the same amount a couple days later. At present, the airline stock market is extremly volatile due to oil, the economy, and incompetence in management, not due to one viral video that probably had no impact on who flies/invests in United, as those people are looking for either a cheap flight (passenger), or a investment that will make a return on their money (investor).--76.121.4.143 (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

My point exactly. Centpacrr (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read all of the above, but given the fact that it's mentioned in the article, I assume consensus was reached that it was worth mentioning. Given that, trying to hide the link to the relevant Wikipedia article by using Easter Egg links or small font sizes is just plain silly. If it's worth mentioning, it should be mentioned properly and trying to avoid the issue is clearly poor editing style.

I personally have no opinion on whether it's worth mentioning but, if it is, I cannot conceieve of a single reasonable argument for hiding the link to the article in question at which readers can learn more about the event. GDallimore (Talk) 12:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The link is not at all hidden (it is openly included as a parenthetical reference), so I don't really understand what the further issue is. Centpacrr (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

My issue is that you're putting it in a small font which is just a ridiculous thing to do. What possible reason is there to do something like that? It is also completely unecessary to use parentheses which adds absolutely nothing while making the sentence harder to read as a whole. You've also wrongly put it in italics when quotes are the norm for song titles. Not a single positive thing can be said for your reversion of my constructive edit. GDallimore (Talk) 15:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

As I now understand it, then, the issue here is no longer really about whether or not the link to the song is "hidden" (it isn't and never really was), it's just a difference in views about the relative aesthetic merits between North American and Commonwealth formatting. Speaking as a professional writer (and editor) with more than forty years experience, however, as this is an article about a US entity the North American formatting would then seem to be the more appropriate choice. Thanks for your input. Centpacrr (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's just rubbish. Nowhere is it good style to put something like this in small text. It's certainly not something you will see ni any half-decent Wikipedia article. Nowhere does it help the flow to put this in parentheses. And it is wikipedia policy not to put song titles in quotes. You need a good reason for these extremely unusual formatting choices and you have not provided a single one.

And you comments about it never being hidden are also wrong. It was hidden, contrary to policy, in a piped link for no good reason until I changed it. An edit you disputed despite my referencing you to that policy. And when you finally gave in you made this ridiculous edit to use small text. What on earth are you trying to achieve by this?

I have no interest in your purported qualifications as your editing in this regard appears wholly deficient. GDallimore (Talk) 19:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The subject of the UAL article is the carrier, its operations, and its business practices, not a commercial band, their songs, or music videos, thus it would seem that if the name of the song, video, and/or band is to be included at all that it is most appropriate to subordinate it as a parenthetical reference. (Others are, of course, absolutely free to disagree, but I am constrained to admit that it still continues to puzzle me when editors seem to take all such differences in views personally.)

Were one to review (see above) the history of how the item about this incident came to be included in the article at all reveals that there was very considerable opposition (including from me) to keeping any mention of it until I replaced what another had written about the band with a completely new entry (with three sources) that I researched and wrote which indicates how the carrier wanted to use it for their own business purposes (which is appropriate) as opposed to it remaining in the form of a promotional piece for a band (which is how it was originally written and is not appropriate).

In your comment immediately above you also refer three times to my views on formatting in this instance as being contrary to Wikipedia "policy" whereas the link you quoted to support that is a page of "guidelines" which are meant to be treated quite differently on Wikipedia. "Guidelines" are only meant to be "primarily advisory" as opposed to "policies" which are defined as "standards that all users should follow." Be that as it may, thanks again for your views about which I guess that we will just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. Centpacrr (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine. If we're agreeing to disagree, I'll edit the text to be the most straightforward and to avoid unecessary use of formatting. The argument that this is somehow promotion is completely wrong since, apparently, it has been decided that this song and its impact on United is worth mentioning in this article. GDallimore (Talk) 09:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue was not one of mentioning the song, but of emphasizing it over the carrier (the subject of the article) and it's request to employ it for UAL's internal business and training purposes. I do not have a problem with the way it is now, but I would suggest, however, that you familiarize yourself (especially as an attorney and scientist) with the distinct differences between Wikipedia "guidelines" and "policies" which do not have the same purposes as the former are meant to be "advisory" while the latter are far more "directive" in their application. Centpacrr (talk) 10:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

United Airlines was founded in 1926 and not 1927 like it's writing in the infobox. Please change the information. Check the link here on the official website:

http://www.united.com/page/article/0,6867,2296,00.html

FRED (talk) 13:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think NRT is seasonal focus city! Because they cut direct service some cities (PEK and TPE) and now be service via NRT. So I already change main page!

Bangkok-Suvarnabhumi - NONHUB
Beijing-Capital [begins 26 October] - NONHUB
Chicago-O'Hare
Honolulu - NONHUB
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Seattle/Tacoma - NONHUB
Seoul-Incheon - NONHUB
Singapore - NONHUB
Taipei-Taoyuan - NONHUB
Washington-Dulles

!!!

Does UA say Narita is a focus city?? You need to provide a source stating that Narita is indeed a focus city for United. You can't just decide for yourself that NRT is a focus city. Snoozlepet (talk) 02:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, this is dictated by United stating so, not by one person thinking so. For instance, SEA serves SFO, LAX, IAD, ORD, DEN, GEG, MWH but it's not a focus city because UA doesn't deem it so. Beevo (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone provide a source stating that the Airbus A320s will replace the 737s? Regards. Snoozlepet (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As no valid source has been given, and further UA has said it is looking at Bombardier C-Series and Embraer Jets to replace the 737-300 and 737-500 fleets, I am removing this reference. Beevo (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I have provided sources for the information. Seeing as the C-Series order has not been placed and any future aircraft ordered won't be delivered for a few years, United needs a replacement for those aircraft now. Yes the C-Series will replace the A320's that once operated routes of the 737's. Here is a better source that I have found^[1] and another here.^[2] Also, from first hand experience although this doesn't count at MSP my home airport we used get 737's, and now we get A320's. 66.247.208.72 (talk) 06:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Simply because United started flying different planes to your home airport doesn't mean that the fleet was augmented to replace specific planes, rather it means that they have shifted flying elsewhere to account for the fleet reductions; for instance, many IAD-BDL flights that used to be A319 and B737 aircraft are now United Express. That does not mean that B737 aircraft were replaced with Canadair CR7 or CRJ aircraft, it just means that fleet utilization was changed. Further, the sources you reference speak nothing of additional purchases of new A320 aircraft to supplement the 737-300 and 737-500 fleet that was removed from service; since that is what this retired fleet box refers to, this reference has been removed until a reference can be provided which shows that additional A320 aircraft have been purchased to replace the Boeing 737-300 and Boeing 737-500 aircraft. 71.227.190.116 (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said I know that my first hand doesn't count. No new aircraft orders need to be placed. With the closure of TED the fleet of A320's has been transferred back to United. The sources show that the A320's are replacing the 737's.66.247.208.72 (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No 737s were replaced with A320s since the 737-200 fleet was grounded at the start of the decade. There have been no new purchases of planes since the 737 grounding, therefore this is inaccurate information that should be removed. If there is a source which states that A320 aircraft have been purchased (none of the existing sources state that), then we should reference that source. Until then the information is false and misleading and will be removed. Beevo (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Some 737s were replaced with A320s, others with E-170s, CR7s, A319s, and 757s. And some 320s replace 737s, while others are in the rotate with… E-170s, CR7s, A319s, and 757s. ORD-IAD sees 767s and 777s as well. So while it's not false that A320s have taken the place of 737s, it is false, or at least deeply misleading, to characterize a general purpose fleet renewal and aircraft utilization changes as a specific replacement program.- choster 04:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

United grounded all its remaining 737s, because of the collapse of the economy last year. It conducted the last 737 flight on October 28, 2009, and then sent the plane to the bone field in the desert. UAL hasn't tried to replace the 737 fleet, as it now wants to fly only what it can with its remaining planes. The 737s were the higher fuel users and the oldest planes, so grounding them made sense when seat capacity had to be reduced, to match the shrinking passenger market. EditorASC (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"That struggle cost the airline $1 billion, and provoked a long period of labor unrest and financial deterioration that culminated in bankruptcy nearly 20 years later." This seems to be an opinion rather than a substantiated fact. Can anyone flag this and give it a citation?

Seems to have been removed... Beevo (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If the planes were never delivered, how were they retired? Propose removing this entry. Beevo (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed. Feel free to discuss if you believe it should be added back Beevo (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The only noted unsubstantiated item on this entry is the ending of free meals. I spent awhile searching for a source but was unable to find one. Propose removing this reference if there is no citation as it's unverifiable. Beevo (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, UA still offers free meals on international flights. On domestic flights, it is buy on board. Snoozlepet (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I added a retired fleet box in the Fleet section. If there is more to add or some errors, please correct :)

There are a few problems.

1. My father flew Viscounts for Untied long after 1947, as I recall they retired the last in 1967 or 68. 2. United sold it's Boeing 377s in the mid-1950s 3. United ceased flying the Convairs in the late 1960s (1968?). 4. The DC-6 was not retired until 1967, it didn't enter service until 1947. 5. The DC-7 did not enter service until AFTER 1951, UAL retired it's 7s in the early 1960s. 6. United did not fly Ford Tri-Motors in 1950. 7. United did not fly the BAE Swallow. 8. United did not fly the JN-4D. 9. The Beech 1900 did not fly until 1982. Guys flying in 1940 would have loved them. 10. Air Inter, not UAL was the launch customer for the A320. 11. The launch customer for the 737-500 was Southwest. 12. Pan Am was the first airlines to order the DC-8.

There are a few more problems. For example, my father flew B-747s for UAL but I do not recall UAL ever operating the SP. Mark Lincoln (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I am a retired UAL Captain. I flew the SP after UAL received them from Pan Am when we purchased Pan Am's Pacific Division. I think the DC-7s were being flown their last for UAL, about 1965/66. I was hired in July, 1966 and I just barely avoided being assigned DC-7 FE school, and got DC-6 instead. UAL never flew the Beech 1900, the Dornier 328, or the Jetsream 41. Those were flown by United Express contract companies, not by UAL. They were entirely separate airlines, which owned their own planes, had their own pilots, mechanics, FAs, etc. They simply contracted with UAL to provide passengers to and from UAL's flights. I don't think UAL ever flew Ford Tri-Motors at all, but would be open to evidence otherwise. I think your phase-out date for the Viscounts is about right. Convair phase-out is probably right too. One had a forced landing in a Newhall, CA farm field in 1966, as a result of fuel starvation and double flameout. EditorASC (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The "Swallow" flown by Varney was the Swallow J-5, not a British product. It was a designed by Matty Laird and Lloyd Sterman.

I don't know what source you have for the JN-4, but Jack Knight, a famous UAL Captain, was an early air mail pilot who flew DH-4s.

A photo of Knight with DH-4 appeared in the official history of UAL printed in the very early 1960s. Mark Lincoln (talk)

Qoute from Dave's Website:

"In the spring of 2008, Sons of Maxwell were traveling to Nebraska for a one-week tour and my Taylor guitar was witnessed being thrown by United Airlines baggage handlers in Chicago. I discovered later that the $3500 guitar was severely damaged. They didn’t deny the experience occurred but for nine months the various people I communicated with put the responsibility for dealing with the damage on everyone other than themselves and finally said they would do nothing to compensate me for my loss. So I promised the last person to finally say “no” to compensation (Ms. Irlweg) that I would write and produce three songs about my experience with United Airlines and make videos for each to be viewed online by anyone in the world. United: Song 1 is the first of those songs. United: Song 2 has been written and video production is underway. United: Song 3 is coming. I promise."

 His music regarding the United incident was widely veiwed recieving over 7 million views for the first track only. Public perception of United airlines began to take a wrong turn but United have since patched things up with UA.

http://www.davecarrollmusic.com/story/united-breaks-guitars —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charldeegee (talk • contribs) 20:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

First off, maybe only a sentence linking in the pop culture section wikilinking the to the song's page is all this needs. Also, your edit is a direct quote from the website and your extra comments don't follow WP:NPOV Spikydan1 (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not really keeping a neutral point of view that is the problem (while it certainly should have a NPOV, that can be fixed easily), it is more of whether or not the incident is notable enough for the article (in other words, whether or not there is enough coverage in reliable, third party sources). If such sources establishing notability can be found, I can see a sentence or two being placed in the Popular culture section, as mentioned by Spikydan. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest making a seperate article or a seperate section for the merger between UA and CO; just like the Delta-Northwest merger. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I generally agree. This is going to be a long process. Perhaps consider having a brief section on past mergers and have a link to a new page on past and the present merger. What do ye think? Safesler 13:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

A section is fine. does not need a new article -Tracer9999 (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The 'accidents and incidents' section has numerous omissions. For example the first two UAL accidents in the 1940s, flight 16, 11/04/1940, and 21, 12/04/1940 are missing.Mark Lincoln (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

San Antonio (SAT) is not a focus city!!! United currently has less than 12 arrivals and departures combined in SAT. All of them are bound from and/or to UA hub cities like Chicago and Denver.

Flights from San Antonio to New Orleans, Kansas City, Oklahoma City and Colorado Springs are operated by Trans States Airlines, which is a United Express carrier. All mainline flights operated by United Airlines link San Antonio to its hub cities.

We have past discussion this topic. SAT is UX focus city, not UA.--B767-500 (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at the "source" for UA's so-called "hub" in JFK, and I found its old/unreliable, since it states Air New Zealand has JFK as a "Focus City", though NZ never flew to JFK!. I am sure that source for that source is a copy/paste from a LAX Airport information guide. Therefore I've changed reference of UA's past JFK ops as a "gateway" and added the Verification tags. Sb617 (Talk) 04:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Multiple sources list a former LAX-JFK route, and discounting a published source entirely because one other point of data is incorrect seems risky - what if we were to do that with the NYTimes or WaPo? Beevo (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The source listed for "JFK" had Alaska Airlines and America West listed as a Focus City. Alaska doesntt even fly to JFK either and it listed it as a Focus City. So removing the re-addition of the "incorrect" source Sb617 (Talk) 22:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

First comment:

I got great source regarding to pre-merger UA and CO hubs + focus city: reading this fact sheet

Second comment -- We have good discussion this section:

on HgCaKu talk page
- Editor agreed I found 'good source' and saying 'But it says "hubs and focus cities" and doesn't say which one is which'. So this is confirm NRT is MINIMUM of focus city; and we knew it must list as bullet point in focus city or hub!

Third comment:

User:74.183.173.237 is wroting a mistaking comments: (this article is about the pre-merger UA, not combined!!! Please take to talk page if disagree!)
- He/she/(or maybe robot because of IP, haha) ... didn't realizing the PDF fact sheet relating to pre-merger UA/CO. So that is meant it is CURRENT information! So, basically we can ignore comments from '74.183.' because he though fact sheet was future UA/CO.

Thanks for helpings. I will repost NRT after discussion finished! --B767-500 (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

According to this, http://www.unitedcontinentalmerger.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/FINAL%20United%20Airlines%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf, it says "hubs and focus cities" but it does not state which one is which. If you can find a source that NRT is a "focus city", then go for it! Snoozlepet (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

So, did you like my suggestion, NRT is MINIMUM focus city? It can't be lowest than focus city? --B767-500 (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Basically, if we don't include in infobox (with MINIMUM focus city), we denying to inlcude factual informations. --B767-500 (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Last call

I make announcement for last call before I make change because I make my proposal change to article. --B767-500 (talk) 06:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It makes sense to me that if UA lists NRT in a list of CURRENT hubs+FC, and if NRT is not a hub, then it must be a FC. HkCaGu (talk) 07:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I would have to agree that UA calls NRT a focus city. However, I don't think NRT is going to become a future UA hub after the merger with CO unless UA is going to announce new routes to and from Narita up and until the merger. But I suggest that the "Future hubs" section in the article needs to go until the merger is approved. Snoozlepet (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I planning to add Smisek insulting comment which offend it's own Star Alliance partner, US Airways:

Maybe this kind poor behavior causes US Airways to left Star Alliance, because bullying by big boys. --B767-500 (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No one rejecting my comment, so I just adds it!--B767-500 (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

are you ESL? I couldn't even understand what you said on the comment. besides its unnecessary drama that doesn't really add anything to the article. -Tracer9999 (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, I am ETL (English as the Third Language). Can you improving section so that you can remove 'unnecessary drama'? I can do a reverting. Thanks. --B767-500 (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think that the comment needs to be included in this article...It does not really add anything useful. Spikydan1 (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The article states that Newark will be retained as a hub but MSNBC claims that Continental is selling its landing rights to Southwest... ^[3] 71.163.176.9 (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Other articles and various insiders on aviation forums report that the new UA only has to give up "some" of their slots, not the whole lot. Other news articles report it as such. If I recall correctly, it's the "old" United's slots that the combined company may be giving up. Sb617 (Talk) 02:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yay!! The merger was official closed today....however please do not put any Continental information into this article nor change the logo for UA until things are finalized. Both carriers will continue to operate seperately until a single, operating certificate is achieved. This is sometime in 2011. If you have any problems, please discuss any changes here. Snoozlepet (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the 737NGs have been double counted in the combined fleet. The 737NG just refers to any 737-600,700,800, or 900ER (extentded range). These planes have been double counted in the total number of planes in the fleet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.51.253 (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The infobox now reads that the combined United/Continental fleet size is "715" but provides no source for this. The detailed list of every aircraft in the combined fleet posted on Planespotters.net, however, gives the number as being "612". This disparity needs to be reconciled by someone who knows more about the correct numbers than I do. Centpacrr (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the airline, and not the parent company United Continental Holdings. I changed the infobox to show a fleet of 360, which is consistent with the table in the article. Gfcvoice (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have been watching this also, and I have noticed inconsistencies in the numbers. I have been on when the specific plane numbers were right but the total was wrong (improper addition), and other times the total was right but the individual planes had incorrect numbers. The current United fleet is 360, while the combined UA/CO fleet is 708. KZiel —Preceding undated comment added 05:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

There is absolutely no reason to show domestic business, as there is no such thing. Just because international planes fly domestic routes doesn't mean the seats are somehow transformed to domestic seats. Kz1123 (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

For reasons of length (the history section is nearly as long as History of Delta Air Lines), and for the fact that UAL is to be significantly changed post-merger, perhaps the History section could be split to History of United Airlines (1926–2009), with all sections save "Merger with Continental Airlines" moved, and a summary left in place. Additionally, some of the "old" United details could be included, such as old Brand slogans, pre-merger Destination, Fleet, and Cabin info, as well (given that the brand is being changed, and destination and fleet info will be combined between UA and CO). For your thoughts, Enginesmax (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be best to wait until customer day one before splitting the article. KZiel

I would like to make a suggestion about splitting the article of United: Under the merger conpany website of unitedcontinentalholdings.com under media center there is a corporate fact sheet that explains from the lounges, partners, routes, employees, frequent fliers, corporate and putting fleet numbers around 1254 planes counting regional planes (United fleet is as big as problably 3 airlines combined if counting reginonal airplanes) I suggest to spilt the article when the FAA give United one operating certificate (post merger, with gives plenty of time for details, frequent flier programs, routes, partners, codeshares, numbers and so forth) the website link of the fact sheet to verify my claims of planes and employees and so forth is : http://www.unitedcontinentalholdings.com/index.php?section=media

Hope this helps to the community in confirming numbers and detils of the post merger of these two great airlines beginning an endeavor that is worth of calling "a titanic merger for the 21st century". arivera

I think we should wait till both United and Continental officially combine operations before splitting this article up. -Compdude123 (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think they should be split but only when they come under one operating licence.

--82.71.16.228 (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is about United Airlines, ie, the airline. The airline is owned by a company called United Continental Holdings.

Nearly all information regarding the merger with Continental is irrelevant to this article, and should be contained in the United Continental Holdings article. Gfcvoice (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Why are they not merging the individual airlines under one operating licence? MilborneOne (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

From the United Continental Holdings article: "UCH plans to dissolve its Continental Airlines, Inc. subsidiary in 2012 when both carriers operate with a single FAA Operations Certificate under United Air Lines, Inc." 20:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfcvoice (talk • contribs)

When the airlines obtain a single operating certificate by 2012, the Continental name will disappear as the combined carrier will be called "United" but with Continental's logo and livery. Either I suggest that put all combined merger stuff into the current UA page, make the current UA and CO pages past tense (i.e. keep both pages for historical purposes), or create a new article for the new United to distinguish from the old one. Snoozlepet (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no "new United" and "old United". There are two airlines, United Airlines and Continental Airlines. Both of these airlines are owned by a company called United Continental Holdings. Gfcvoice (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to do anything now. Ultimately this article title (at least) will need to transition to whatever is United Airlines next December (2011). The history section can refer to other main articles about history, if the article is too long, otherwise. But nothing should be done until it shakes out. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the issue with keeping the old UA logo on the page and why the new logo can't be displayed just as it would if United had changed the logo without a merger. United has planes with the new logo in service as of this date (12/25/2010) and is in the process of changing the rest of its signage, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.220.250 (talk) 16:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that we leave the old logo in place until they change over to the new logo on their official website. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

- - Not to mention, the "new" logo is absolute shit. Save the Tulip!

I also prefer to wait- Wikipedia isn't a source of breaking news. Unsigned said "United...is in the process of changing the rest of its signage, etc" I counter by saying I haven't seen any evidence of this nor can I find a press release that announces UA moving forward with changing everything. I understand that the re-paints UA has done are just part of the -test- phase to make sure that the new livery scales well, etc. but at this time UA is not yet moving forward with mass re-paints of the fleet. UA has changed the "new" logo since it debuted and may change it yet again. Keep in mind that changing the planes livery doesn't necessarily mean the logo has changed. Southwest, for example, officially debuted their current canyon blue livery on their planes on Jan 16, 2001 but did not update its corporate logo until 11 months later on Nov 15, 2001. Ch Th Jo (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think the attachment to the old tulip logo or any corporate logo is weird but has no place in editing decisions, here. I just think we follow the story, as it develops, and currently, this part of United-Continental Holdings is using this logo.Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The tulip has a reprieve, at least until customer day one. Signage is being replaced in SFO, a United hub, the fleet is being re-painted, sorry the facts are the facts are the facts. I would wait until customer day one. After that, there is no-excuse not to change it. --Drexmacc (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I was at SFO today...the Tulip was still all over the place, and remains on the United.com website. Why are you so obsessed about changing it?

Just checked the United website and the new globe logo is on there. It's now on this page as well. It's sooooo sad that the tulip is gone. But it's still in this article, just scroll down to the Brand section. DON'T DELETE IT!-Compdude123 (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

What are the metrics you are using to make the conclusion that "there has been a lot of negative reaction to the new livery"? Obviously you've never gone to college and clearly aren't capable of writing a scholarlly or peer reviewed article.--Drexmacc (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The update to show owned/leased/contracted is quite misleading for a few reasons. First, the owned/leased information is incorrect - United does not own all of their fleet (for example N532UA is leased). Second, the contracted information is incorrect - these are not planes contracted for United Airlines, they are doing business as United Express but wholly owned by other companies that are not part of United Continental Holdings Inc. Believe this information should be removed as it's both misleading and inaccurate. Plan to do so unless there are objections. Beevo (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Changed Beevo (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Can someone (especially those near a UA/CO hub) volunteer to take a picture of the ugly livery a United widebody or 747 (like this one on sfgate.com) and post for the airticle? I mean, we need a non-copyrighted image. Thanks. --Inetpuppy (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Better yet, we should just not post one at all considering the livery is absolute trash and not representative of the TRUE UAL. I do not want to see that sickening livery on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.87.161 (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Me neither! I HATE the new logo and livery! It looks too much like Continental. I'm going to stick their old logo somewhere on this page--it still needs to be here. -Compdude123 (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The old logo is back on this page. I stuck it in the "Brand" section. --Compdude123 (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Continental's in-house logo is a joke compared to Saul Bass' well thought out double tulip. Probably one of many concessions (sigh!) UAL offered to keep the United name and to keep the HQ in Chicago.--Inetpuppy (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I hate the new livery/logo, but I do have some pictures of 777s in the new livery Kz1123 (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Does any know the new slogan for United since they changed the logo? Snoozlepet (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This is my educated guess: "Let's Fly Together" see this and this --Inetpuppy (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know how United will rank their hubs by size after the merger is completed? I know that Houston will become the largest hub, O'Hare will be second-largest, and Newark the third-largest...but what about Denver, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Cleveland, Guam, and Narita? I know that some have already been ranked as if Continental and United are already combined. Can anyone verify? Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 06:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I have some confusing issues, which can it see on this edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antonio_B._Won_Pat_International_Airport&action=historysubmit&diff=462706583&oldid=461621162

HkCaGu is best editor and he make this comment: "UA flt number doesnt mean it's not operated by CO". So, how to tell is CO flight pretending to be an UA flight in 000 to 999 range? --B767-500 (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

UA 1-199 are all now CO. HkCaGu (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Now that a SOC has been achieved, United's fleet totals and hubs must be edited in the introductory paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.174.231 (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This appears to have been changed already, with the large slurry of edits that happened today. Thanks, Compdude123 (talk) 06:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

After I posted that comment, I decided to update it myself.--14940674md (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The livery info needs to be removed from the fleet table as per This Policy. Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the reason why that unnecessary livery info is here is because that fleet table was copied from United Continental Holdings once UA and CO obtained a single operating certificate. Yes, the livery stuff does need to be removed and replaced with seating configurations. I'll try and do that once I get the chance. —Compdude123 (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, i would do it myself but its a big job and i simply dont have the time. --JetBlast (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, now the fleet table has been changed as you've requested. However, because I simply copied some of the seating info for their new aircraft from CO's page and because that was last updated before the merger, it may be out of date. Verification/ updating would be much appreciated. Thanks, Compdude123 (talk) 06:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Since the Boeing 737-500 (a former Continental plane), is now part of the fleet. Shouldn't the Boeing 737 be removed from the retired fleet table? Snoozlepet (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

yes, and put a note saying it was retired and now in service again --JetBlast (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Did the same thing for the Boeing 767-200 aircraft. Snoozlepet (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

We need to somehow merge Continental's destinations into the United destinations page. If someone have time, please do. Snoozlepet (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Is the new United slogan really "You're going to like where we land!", because I don't remember an official announcement declaring a new slogan?--14940674md (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's correct. I was reading a news article a couple weeks ago and it said their slogan was Let's fly together. —Compdude123 (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

This airline has been around for the better part of a century, yet three of the four intro paragraphs deal exclusively with the Continental merger. An intro is meant to provide a broad overview of a topic. It's not a place to cram in details about one recent event. Moncrief (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you to the poster who streamlined the intro quite a lot! Looks good now. And to clarify: I think enhancing details are great and important -- just that they should be in a lower section, not the intro. Moncrief (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the split of the history section into a separate article History of United Airlines. This has been discussed before but there wasn't a consensus and several people (including me) suggested to wait till both UA and CO combined operations. But one user went ahead and did this already without even discussing it here and waiting for a consensus. I reverted it also because I'm not a big fan of having history sections split off into separate articles; if the parent article is too long don't get rid of the history section, instead shorten all the other sections and especially the inflight services section so that it doesn't appear to be written by the airline's marketing dept. (The cabin section of this article is one of the sections that screams "ADVERTISEMENT!" all over it.) Anyway, if you didn't like my decision, don't start an edit war over something as stupid as this. Thanks, Compdude123 (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I get that we have to have at least one photo of a UA plane in CO colors on this page, but how come we have absolutely ZERO in the Saul Bass livery, a paint job UA used for 20 years and is actually..theirs?? Also, it seems that certain posters are deleting a lot of United pictures with the Tulip and information from pre-merger and replacing them with the continental livery and continental information. Continental pics and info should go to the CO page, while United info/actual United liveries remains here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.11.73 (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, how about this photo? It's a 747 in the good old Rainbow scheme, the BEST livery design ever! Anyway, I'm going to add it to the article. —Compdude123 (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

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

United airlines has two more hubs that were not listed. They're Frankfurt International Airport and London Heathrow International Airport Source: http://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/travel/airport/maps/default.aspx 75.39.12.42 (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Done – I have added these two airports to the hub list. Thanks for spotting this mistake, Comp dude¹²³ 04:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

How can they be hubs when they only have destinations to other UA hubs? The source, however, is misleading because its says "United hubs and key airports". Also various press releases do not mention LHR and FRA as hubs. Also, Star Alliance's United page does not have those listed as hubs. 68.113.122.83 (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I commented in the section below. Let's continue the discussion there. —Comp dude¹²³ 23:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

How can LHR and FRA be hubs when they only fly to other UA hub cities? This source http://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/travel/airport/maps/default.aspx list LHR and FRA as hubs but its press releases and the Star Alliance's United page does not list them as hubs. 68.113.122.83 (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

From looking at their route map, LHR and FRA don't look like they could possibly be hubs. My guess is that they are listed in the "Hubs and key cities" list here because they offer connections to flights operated by alliance or codeshare partners. As far as I can tell they aren't technically hubs. If only the airline could be more clear about what its hubs are that would help us a lot. —Comp dude¹²³ 23:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Various United press releases, United's fact sheet (updated May 2012), and the Star Alliance page for United do not list LHR and FRA as a hub. Lufthansa and United may have a joint-venture and United will claim Frankfurt as a hub. Just like Delta is calling CDG a hub where technically it is not when Delta lists CDG as a hub on their website.Snoozlepet (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

If that's so, then it can be removed. An edit notice and/or hidden note should be added to prevent disputes over the hubs in the future. —Comp dude¹²³ 02:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Other editor put incorrect ticker, so have to be removal it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Airlines&diff=500105132&oldid=499988301

~~(NYSE: UAL)~~
or just hide it:

--B767-500 (talk) 04:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

How is that wrong? Is "UAL" not their stock ticker? —Comp dude¹²³ 05:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

[1] [1]
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2009-10-27-united-737-final-flight_N.htm

[2] [2]
http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/business/2009/09/18/united_airlines_last_boeing_737_planned_

[3] [3]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38886914/ns/business-us_business/

[1]

[2]

[3]

Forbes opinion piece and claimed "$180 Million" stock plunge

Last call

Forbes opinion piece and claimed "$180 Million" stock plunge

Last call

Project Bojinka

PDX is not a focus city

New Logo

HUBS

San Antonio (SAT) is a focus city

SEA not focus city??

New Fleet chart

Bankruptcy additions by 67.163.8.43

External links categories

GAC

United should have 747-8

Recent POV additions

Why is someone changing my contributions to the United Airlines page?

Cleanup needed

Why this flag: 'This article or section does not cite its references or sources'???

Economy Plus

Format corruption of Incidents section

Mileage Plus

Cabin

Discussion of Complaints links

Heathrow focus city

Merger Rumors

Fair use rationale for Image:United mileagepluslogo.jpg

Recent news section

In Pop Culture

HNL focus city?

fleet size - seating layouts changing

Hong Kong focus city

Great job! This article was used as a major source by Air International Magazine (12/2007 edition)

Codeshare Agreements

UA SFO-CAN Flight

"Premature death" of TED

References

NRT

United's Interest in Boeing 787 Dreamliner

cross posting to ual and pdx

Length of Introduction

United Breaks Guitars

Fleet list images

United Fleet Updates

Damaged guitar "Viral Video" issue

Founded in 1926&nbsp;!

NRT regain focus city status because direct service got cut!

Airbus A320s replacing Boeing 737s??

Citation needed

de Havilland Comet in Retired Fleet?

Ending of free meals

Added Retired Fleet Box

Dave Carrol Controversy.

Seperate article for Continental and United merger

Omissions in the accidents and incidents

San Antonio (SAT) is not a focus city

UA and past JFK Airport Ops

I got definitive source NRT focus city

I want to adds Smisek 'ugly girl' comment

New Hubs?

Merger with Continental

Merger with Continental

Fleet size needs to be reconciled with sources

Domestic Business

Split suggestion

United Airlines versus United Continental Holdings

Changing the logo

Fleet info - Owned/Leased/Contracted

Picture request: Need Wiki photo of ugly new livery (like this one)

Company Slogan

Hub rankings after merger

CO flight pretending to be UA mainline -- 0 to 999 range

Facts must be updated.

Fleet Table

Continental destinations

United Slogan

Intro is now absurd

Reverted history section split

Bad priorities much?

Edit request on 19 June 2012

Founded in 1926 !