Talk:Air Transat
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perhaps a current logo would be informative and relevant to the article, but including two old logos at the bottom may not be. I suggest if one is included at all, it be added closer to the top of the article- as that would be most relevant and at a more appropriate location.68.79.97.96 (talk)04:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this paragraph seems wrong: "Air Transat has 2,667 employees[4] The aircraft safely landed at Lajes Air Base, on the island of Terceira. The aircraft was evacuated in 90 seconds. All 306 passengers on board survived. Afterwards, an investigation revealed that the cause of the accident was a fuel leak in the number two engine which was caused by an incorrect part installed in the hydraulics system by Air Transat maintenance staff. The part did not maintain adequate clearance between the hydraulic lines and the fuel line, allowing vibration in the hydraulic lines to degrade the fuel line and cause the leak."—Precedingunsigned comment added by94.254.40.37 (talk)19:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone had reverted an edit saying certain flights are operated by Thomas Cook Airlines. I updated theServices section: it is more accurate to say that it's acodeshare service, which is the exact wording the airline uses on its website.
For example: I recently booked Air Transat flight 806 from Gatwick to Montreal. My e-ticket said "operated by Thomas Cook Airlines under designator TCX6K". Sure enough, it was a Thomas Cook Airlines Boeing 757 I boarded at Gatwick, but the check-in counter, the aircraft door and most of the announcements saidCanadian Affair, the name of a tour operator owned by Transat.AirOdyssey (Talk)17:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Founded in 1987, but they have a '86 livery?90.209.11.24 (talk)07:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, it's Eric.Is there any news on the aircraft for air transat? There is a new line of a330 called a330neo that is set for 2017. Sinse several airlines in Canada will be upgrading, it would make sense if Transat did the same. Go to the official airbus a330 family page and there are details on the a330neo.Thanks
Eric— Precedingunsigned comment added by199.195.166.103 (talk)06:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are three different sources for the fleet and no way to say which is correct. So the best thing is to put in all three and the reader can decide. No way though should the airlines or Transport Canada's numbers be removed in place of planespotters.CambridgeBayWeather,Uqaqtuq (talk),Sunasuttuq11:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened up a section atWikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#planespotters and airfleets.net.CambridgeBayWeather,Uqaqtuq (talk),Sunasuttuq06:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The comment(s) below were originally left atTalk:Air Transat/CommentsTalk:Air Transat/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Followingseveral discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
| Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
|---|---|
| The first incident discussed suffers from flaws of neutrality, omission of facts, and from poor reference material (at best characterized as secondary source material, but probably tertiary or worse) chosen for interpretation of this incident. Official Transport Canada, Canada's Transportation Safety Board, and the Government of Portugal's Aviation Accidents Prevention and Investigation Department files and case information should be referenced, not an aviation enthusiast website article. The incident and accident section also seems to display a different level of writing skill and style in my opinion, suffering from poor grammar and vocabulary. This writer will attempt to correct these issues, especially with respect to the famous incident of the fuel exhaustion emergency landing in the Azores. J.A.Ireland, BA (IHPST) (talk)19:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] After checking the original author's source for footnote 3, (a popular aviation news portal website, and thus, at best, a secondary source) it can be readily seen that the author does not even give a balanced or complete summary of the the article to which (s)he refers. This is quite misleading, in addition to a questionable choice of a non-primary source for reporting on this incident. I have sourced many reports and documents from Canadian government agencies (and must say that Canada's aviation accident and incident reporting and publication system is woefully lacking in comparison to, for example, the U.S. NTSB website) as well as Portugal's Government documents upon which I will re-write this section after reading them over. This investigation has also lead me to realize that the Canadian government and its aviation authorities take what to me seems an odd and arbitrary approach to deciding where they have jurisdiction as primary investigators. For instance, one Canadian source document refers to the fact that the Air Transat rudder separation incident's occurrence over "international" waters mandated that they (the Canadian investigators) take primary responsibility for the investigation (presumably because, (and this makes sense I believe with respect to ICAO convention) the aircraft was registered in Canada), in spite of the fact that the aircraft departed from another nation, and landed in another nation. Yet by the same rationale, the fuel exhaustion incident should have been primarily investigated by the Canadian authorities, yet it was not. Many of the same conditions applied (incident over international waters, Canadian registered aircraft), yet this investigation was left primarily in the hands of Portugal's authorities. As a licenced Canadian pilot who flew small aircraft until a couple of years ago, I believe this deserves some comment, and perhaps even in the venue of this particular article, as it is a key example of a Canadian aviation authority seemingly voluntarily abrogating (or at least reneging upon) its responsibilities to the people it primarily represents. J.A.Ireland, BA (IHPST) (talk)17:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] | |
Last edited at 17:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC).Substituted at 06:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
So, recently, an edit has been made by user CambridgeBayWeather. This edit is a new column in the "Fleet" table: "Variants". It now looks like this:
Aircraft |Variants | In service | Orders | Passengers | Notes
They defended this edit, stating that he thinks it makes it easier for "the common reader" to navigate through. They also stated:
"Wikipedia is supposed to be for a general audience not only for people who know all about any particular aircraft. So having things likeAirbus A310-300 which sends you toAirbus A310#Variants does not help the general reader. So providing both links allow the reader to go read either the article on the Airbus A310 or if they already know about it they can go to the more specific section."
I'd argue that the new "Variants" column is pointless because if we take the previously-mentioned argument of ""Airbus A310-300" may be too confusing for the common reader, so two columns make it easier to navigate through", here's my solution.
The "Variants" column can be deleted, and instead, the aircraft's name can be written as:
"Airbus A310-300"(for example)
That way, the variant is still written there, but the link takes you to the general page. From there, the reader can head to the section of the article about the -300 variant by using the "Contents" box.
What do y'all think? Do you consider the new "Variants" column necessary and helpful?
EnjoyingMyProblems (talk)09:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As perWikipedia:Neutral point of view, which says in part, "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." In this caseTransport Canada is a reliable source for the fleet. A fleet includes all the aircraft that are under control of the owner. It does not mean just the ones that are being flown. We don't get to pick and choose which sources we include when they are different. We use all and let the reader choose. However, we can state that Air Transt does not list those particular aircraft. This is no different than many other airline articles.Angryskies.CambridgeBayWeather,Uqaqtuq (talk),Huliva04:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
