Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:21, 15 April 2017

John F. Kennedy International Airport was nominated as a Engineering and technology good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 6, 2013). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Aviation: Airports This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the airport project. This article is currently undergoing a peer review. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York City High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York (state): Long Island Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Long Island, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Airport Building 141 - 141 Federal Circle, Jamaica, NY be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. Wikipedians in New York City may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

It is requested that an image or photograph of Ramada Plaza JFK Airport - BUILDING #144 JOHN F KENNEDY AIRPORT VAN WYCK EXPRESSWAY NEW YORK, NY 11430 - Directions, Map, See copyrighted image be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. Wikipedians in New York City may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

It is requested that an image or photograph of Korean Air Cargo at JFK - Map be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. Wikipedians in New York City may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on July 31, 2014.

Location

Is it entirely on the coast of the bay, or is part of it actually in the bay? (Did they extend a runway beyond the natural coastline onto landfill that they dumped in the bay?)

You can see how much they filled by comparing the 1924 aerial pics with the 1951 and more recent ones at http://gis.nyc.gov/doitt/nycitymap/ Tim Zukas (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

it is actually in Queens... not on Long Island. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.161.149.2 (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Name

I think that this page should be renamed to the fuller "John F. Kennedy International Airport", since the airport is also well known under this name. WhisperToMe 00:57, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

WhisperToMe it looks like its already done! Prabash.Akmeemana 04:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Terminals

I added a new short stub relating to the Pan AM worldport called Worldport (Pan Am). i also added some information related to the architects of the Worldport in the kennedy main article, and am wondering because there is so much info on the individual terminals, they might need their own longer articles and need to pull out that sort of information from the kennedy main article. As info is added on the structures, they might get too long. For instance, the TWA terminal deserves a very long wikipedia article, as it has been written about alot through the years. BrandlandUSA 12:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Tragedy

The word tragedy has been in the article since the first version. I strongly disagree with those who state that it is POV. Are we now required not to offend al-Qaeda supporters? Brooklyn Nellie (Nricardo) 23:21, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

Its not necessary to call it a tragedy. Let the reader decide if September 11 was a tragedy or not. WhisperToMe 23:32, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It may be tragic, but the word Tragedy suggests a certain amount of inevitability. Y control 14:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why was this moved?

Is there a reason "New York/" was added? That does not seem to be part of the official or common name. --SPUI (talk) 23:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have moved it back, after finding no evidence of a name change. --SPUI (talk) 00:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was just about to do the same. That was exactly the right thing to do. Nohat 00:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are three airports in the New York area and to avoid confusion with which one. Like O'Hare is Chicago O'Hare. SNIyer12 19:14, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Yep, but they don't do that in New York. WhisperToMe 20:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The Christopher Elliot comment

Does this deserve to be here? I did a Google search on him, and the results were weak, at best. Pacific Coast Highway 18:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Significant Presence

I've removed the line that BA has a significant presence and someone has been restoring it. Being the leading non-US carrier out of Kennedy does not earn British Airways special mention. They have 8 flights a day to their hubs (7 to London, 1 to Manchester). American, United, and Air Canada each have 10-11 flights a day out of Heathrow and SAS has 20, so do they have a significant presence there? Dbinder 22:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I sort of think that while BA only has a certain number of flights, maybe it continues to be reinserted because they have a name at the top of the terminal. it does indicate they have a larger presence than other international carriers, but see both pointsBrandlandUSA 12:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

New York-JFK or New York-Kennedy??

When listing the destinations of airlines that fly to this airport, what is the best designation for JFK? New York-JFK or New York-Kennedy? I think that the designation should be listed as "New York-JFK" because every single airport article on Wiki have "New York-JFK" as the designation for JFK Airport. What are your suggestions? Bucs2004 20:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd go for New York-JFK, since I don't think people say "I'm flying from Kennedy to XXX" but rather "I'm flying from JFK to XXX". Elektrik Blue 82 21:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, because I saw one user kept putting the designation "New York-Kennedy" instead of "New York-JFK" under the airport articles Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport and Austin Bergstrom International Airport but I have switched it back from "New York-Kennedy" to "New York-JFK". Bucs2004 22:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Kennedy or JFK are both acceptable according to Wiki:Airports Talk page. I would stick with Kennedy, though, since other cities with multiple airports don't use the codes. Such as Hobby, LaGuardia, O'Hare, Midway, Intercontinental, Dulles, etc., etc. 70.123.197.99 01:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree but I would recommend looking at all the airport articles and see that "New York-JFK" is used and not "New York-Kennedy". But you can feel free to change them all to Kennedy but I think it will look weird. Bucs2004 02:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be easier to change this sole code JFK to Kennedy than to change LaGuardia to LGA, Dulles to IAD, Hobby to HOU, O'Hare to ORD,... 70.123.197.99 04:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is the determining factor in naming the airport? IMHO, it should be named according to what it is more commonly known. It just happens that JFK is known by its IATA code. Can there be a vote on this if it is an issue? Elektrik Blue 82 05:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

While this issue seems to have died over a year ago, I will add my comments. Being a local, I can tell you that both "JFK" and "Kennedy" are used in reference to the airport. Both are appropriate, IMHO. This is easy to compare to because of NYC's 3 major airport, since while locals often refer to JFK as "JFK", you virtually never hear LaGuardia referred to as "LGA" or Newark referred to as "EWR"... in both cases its generally just "LaGuardia" and "Newark". I think the BIG difference here compared to other multi-airport cities is that JFK is not just the code, its the VERY FAMOUS initials of the VERY FAMOUS guy its named after...Famartin 01:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

SriLankan Airlines (Formerly Air Lanka)

What terminal does SriLankan Airlines (Formerly Air Lanka) go to? I did not see it in the list of airlines at each terminal. 69.138.62.148 04:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, JFK is not a destination of UL. It only codeshares with EK on flights to JFK. Elektrik Blue 82 07:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Chairs

Are the chairs in other terminals as impossible to sit in without slouching down & compressing your spine as they are in Terminal 7? --JimWae 04:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Abandoned Runways

There are at least 3 abandoned runways at JFK that have been converted to taxiways. They've always looked obvious to me from the airport diagram. I've only seen mention of them on an airliners.net discussions board which is not reliable enough to use as a source. If anyone has more info on them with a definitive source we may want to include it in the article. Taxiway L and a section of taxiway Y were runway 7R/25L. This runway was abandoned either after Worldport was constructed or expanded. The instrument approach lights for it were mounted on wood pilings extended into Jamaica Bay. The wood pilings are still there and easiy visible on Google Earth. Taxiway Z was once runway 1R/19L. Taxiway E was a commuter plane runway 14/32 and only recently converted to a taxiway. Runways 7L/25R and 1L/19R have been completely built over though.

SkyWayMan 02:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Destinations

Doesn't United operate a direct flight to Tokyo-Narita (UA891 via LAX) and a direct flight to Melbourne (UA839 via LAX and SYD) so shouldn't these be included as they're direct flights?Blahx100 13:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

also US Airways flies JFK-LAS-DEN (US601 operated by America West) so should that be included too?Blahx100 13:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

United also flies to Hong Kong from JFK (direct flight, UA891 JFK-LAX-NRT-HKG) so should that be included too?Blahx100 13:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

UA also has a direct flight to Seoul-Incheon (UA893 via SFO) so should that go in too?Blahx100 13:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

US airways flies JFK-LAS-SAN (US532 operated by America West-does that go in too?Blahx100 13:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If I am correct, these are faux direct flights, the airline uses just one flight number but there is an aircraft change in the last US city (ie. LAX or SFO) before proceeding to a foreign destination. And because of that, we don't list it here. See WP:AIRPORTS for details. Cheers. /ɪlεktʃɹɪk bluː/ 14:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

From the WP:AIRPORTS page:

List non-stop and direct flights only. That means the flight number and the aircraft, starts at this airport and continues to one or more airports. Avoid using the description 'via' since that is more correctly listed as another destination. If passengers can not disembark at a stop on a direct flight, then do not list it as a destination or as 'via'. Direct flights are not always non-stop flights. However, avoid listing most domestic United States direct flights, as virtually all of these are simply flights from one "spoke city" to a hub, with the plane continuing from the hub to a second spoke city. Including these flights dramatically increases the length of destination listings, artificially inflates the airline's presence at a location and requires constant updating, as these "timetable direct" destinations have little rhyme or reason and may change as often as every week or two.

therefore the US Airways flights shouldn't be included but what about the United Flights? This doesn't say anything about plane changes. Blahx100 07:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"...the flight number and the aircraft..." means no plane changes. DB (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

An anon. editor continued to list Qantas as serving LAX from JFK. Qantas does not operate this route. This route is operated by American with a Qantas flight number, and connects to a Qantas flight at LAX. If this editor is reading this, please stop restoring this incorrect information. It will be removed each time. Neo16287 20:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

To the above person: Qantas does fly its own planes between JFK and LAX once per day as Qantas Flight 108, which continues to Sydney. However, domestic passengers can't fly Qantas from JFK to LAX. Yes, American does have Qantas codeshares on its flights from JFK to LAX, but one flight is actually operated by Qantas on a Qantas aircraft. I made the latest change to the article, but I made a note of how domestic passengers can't fly Qantas to LAX. I think my edit might be a little bit wordy, however, so if someone wants to fix it up then go ahead. Please note that I was not the individual previously adding LAX as a Qantas destination. Aaporter 87 00:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Jasepl adds Northwest Airlines as flying to Tel Aviv beginning June 3 from terminal 3. Where does this mystery flight come from? NWA does not currently fly to TLV. Its own reservations site offers either the regularly scheduled Delta Airlines JFK-TLV non-stop route (from terminal 3), or KLM's JFK-Amsterdam-TLV route (which in any case, departs from terminal 4). If one tries to make a reservation on NWA's website for a flight after June 3, the same options are offered, Delta or KLM. Nowhere on NWA's website is there any mention of Tel Aviv as a NWA destination. Besides, by June 3, will not NWA cease to exit as a brand?

It is not a mystery flight. The existing JFK-TLK flight is flown with a Delta owned 767. That will, from June 3, be flown with a NWA owned 744. Ergo it's a NWA flight/route (based on the longstanding guideline to list ops on NWA aircraft as NWA flights). Plenty of such examples around, where aircraft have been swapped. if the two airlines do merge by then, the fix will become just one of hundreds. Jasepl (talk) 10:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

NWA may presently own the 747 which will be used on the JFK-TLV route after June 3. Delta owns NWA, by June 3, there will be no more NWA brand. Tickets will be issued by Delta, Ticket counters and the terminal will be branded Delta. The plane's livery will surely be changed to Delta by then. Delta's website does mention the fact that the 767-300 will be replaced by a 747-400, but with no mention of NWA owning the plane. NWA makes no mention of such a flight. It is a "virtual flight" by means of legalistic reasoning regarding the Delta-Northwest merger. It is misleading to any reader of the Misplaced Pages article, you must admit.

I agree with you for the most part. I'm not a fan of the way things are currently listed either. However, there was a long discussion involving many editors over this, and the current format is what was agreed upon by majority consensus. Even though I wasn't one of those in support of the current format, it's what I too follow across the board. See the discussion archives over at WP:Airlines (and possibly Wp:Airports) if you want to read more. Thanks. Jasepl (talk) 10:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps there are instances where equipment owned by a partner airline or a subsidiary airline is used or is planned to be used in the future, then such a listing would be warranted. But in this case, the NWA brand will be but a mere nostalgic memory by June 2010. I think you may be misinterpreting the guidelines for listing airline destinations. If the NWA 747 is currently being used on the route, then fine, by all means call it a NWA destination. But the plane is now owned by Delta, it will be a Delta plane in June, there will be no NWA. Again, the information is misleading as you list it.

Also, there is a discussion here at the Delta talk page regarding how to list NW flights. Please add your thoughts to that page. However, for right now....NW/DL still operating as seperate carriers. Once the operating certificates have merged (i.e. the merger is complete in 2010), we can then list all the flights as Delta. So, I would just listed them as just "Northwest Airlines"/"Delta Air Lines" seperated with no "operated by" until the certificates are merged. Snoozlepet (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone has withdrawn Rio de Janeiro-Galeão as a destination for American Airlines, but AA still flies directly from JFK to GIG, via GRU (it is a tag flight) with Boeing 777-200ER aircraft. AA has applied for daily JFK-GIG nonstop to DOT, but it continues to be a regular scheduled destination from JFK, only now it is a 1-stop daily flight. Please do not erase it again!

Ground Transportation

Am I the only one who thinks that the Helicopter section reads like an advertisment? Rob110178 07:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Terminal 7

Anon. editors continue to tout this terminal as the British Airways Terminal. Terminal 7 was the BA terminal at one time, but today is used by more airlines than just BA. It has not been referred to as the British Airways Terminal in official or legitimate writings for some time now. Please stop renaming Terminal 7 the British Airways Terminal. Your edit is incorrect, and will be reverted. Neo16287 22:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have requested semi-protection on this article seen here: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_page_protection. If approved, hopefully this will make the load lighter.. Rob110178 23:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I arrived from Manila, Phillipines via Hong Kong, Hong Kong, last March 29, 2007. the airline I rode was Cathay Pacific Flight 831 from Hong Kong. When we got out of the jetway and proceeding to US Customs it was announced, "Welcome to the British Airways Terminal, Terminal 7 at John F. Kennedy International Airport. After you have gone through US Customs please proceed to Baggage Claim 9 to get your baggage. Welcome to New York!". So Terminal 7 is called the British Airways Terminal, ain't I correct? -chris^_^ 04:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess that is the official name. However, considering the number of airlines operating out of that terminal, I'd still leave it out. In most WP airport articles that attach an airline name to a terminal, the terminal isn't actually named after the airline. However, due to one airline controlling the terminal, it is commonly referred to as that (e.g. United Airlines terminal at O'Hare, Delta terminal in Boston, etc.). DB (talk) 05:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have read on airliners.net that BA actually owns Terminal 7 (which, ironically, is not the case with any of its terminals in the UK). I do not know how or where to verify this, however. colerc

Semi-Protected

Semi-Protection has been applied, hopefully this will help the article Rob110178 00:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you! Neo16287 02:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Helipad

When there is regular Helicopter service from JFK to Downtown Manhattan, why is there no mention of a helipad on the list of runways? Braditude 08:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Seperation of domestic/international flights

I've noticed that at a few US airports (specifically JFK, EWR, ORD and LAX) some airlines domestic and international destinations are seperated. This is not set up in the standard form as set forth in the ProjectWiki Airport guide. Plus, when it's being done, it's inconsistent even within the airport page - i.e. DL and UA destinations being seperated, but AA and NW remaining intact at LAX. Also, people don't/shouldn't break it down for the airlines' regional ops, because 1) it looks awful, and 2) it just doesn't make much sense. So, stop doing it. Thanks. Andrewb729 17:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

QF JFK-LAX

Stop adding Los Angeles as a destination for Qantas!!! Many anon IPs have been adding it as a destiantion for Qantas. Yes, they do fly JFK-LAX-SYD but Qantas has no rights to transport passengers from JFK to LAX only! You cannot book a ticket for JFK-LAX only! Your edits are incorrect and will be reverted. Bucs2004 02:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If you contact the Qantas call center, you can book a ticket for JFK-LAX, a two-day (or however long) stopover in LAX, then a continuing flight LAX-SYD. Both parts are required, but this clearly constitutes a trip to Los Angeles, and in any case it is misleading to state merely Sydney--at least the designation should be "Sydney via Los Angeles" so as not to imply that a nonstop commercial flight of this distance is possible. I have not, however, made any edits on this point personally. colerc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.161.122 (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

True, but if you put Los Angeles as a destination you are giving them a thought that they can fly, and by fly I mean only fly JFK-LAX without a connecting flight to SYD, AKL, MEL, or BNE after a day or two. It is a policy on WP:AIRPORTS to write direct flights, and direct flights is a flight that operates with one flight number and aircraft from one destination to another with a stop or two. That's why we should list Sydney as a destination. But if we list Sydney via Los Angeles we are giving the people an impression that you can't fly to SYD directly as you need to change flights in LAX, thus it is not a direct flight if we list it as Sydney via Los Angeles. -chris^_^ 03:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

so, am i right or not? Qantas would not let me book a JFK-LAX ticket only on their website.Bucs2004 18:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right. Being able to stop in LA is not a "trip to Los Angeles," it's a trip to Australia with a stopover. If one cannot buy a ticket just to LAX, it shouldn't be listed as a destination. V-train 20:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Qantas won't let me book just JFK-LAX...well I could, but I would have to go via SYD, but forget it. It should not be listed as a destination. Neo16287 04:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

To help solve the Qantas issue, I made a note stating that the Sydney flight from New York involve a stop in Los Angeles but passengers cannot purchase to fly from JFK-LAX on QF. Hopefully this will help. Cheers!!! Bucs2004 23:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Would it not be pertinent to include MEL, BNE and AKL as destinations somewhere. Although the flight number is a continuation for the SYD flight, this appears to be just a technicality, as passengers can connect to any one of these flights. BNE, MEl and AKL, in terms of conveying Qantas' operations from JFK, have as much right as to be included as SYD. Also, would the footnote not be more appropriately attached to the destinations? Bthebest (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see my comments at Talk:Chūbu Centrair International Airport. I wouldn't oppose to adding LAX with a note, but I don't see how we can add those other three, even in the note. Maybe a wikilink to Los Angeles International Airport#Airlines and destinations in the note will do. We should probably also bring this up to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Airports. HkCaGu (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Have added the other three in as a simple addition to the note. I completely agree however with everything said before about NOT having LAX. Bthebest (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Terminal 4

I used to depart from Terminal 4 when I used to ride NWA to MNL. And I noticed that in Terminal 4 all the gates either begin with A or B and if you want to go to the A gates you have to go through final security screening. And to go to the B gates you have to go to a different security screening. And the A & B gates are separated by the food court so if you want to go to the B gates from the A gates you have to go thru security screening again. So technically Terminal 4 is divided into Concourse A & B. So in the article page of this airport Terminal 4 should be divided into Concourse A & B. Right? -chris^_^ 23:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Anybody?! -chris^_^ 14:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

While most airlines stick to one side, it is possible (at least in theory, not sure if this ever happens in practice) that an airline might switch back and forth depending on which gates were available on a particular day, or that an airline with multiple flights might operate from both sides (I think Virgin America may already be doing this). So it is not straightforward to divide the two, and unlike say the Central Terminal Building at LGA, all T4 departures and arrival facilities (check-in, customs, baggage claim) are integrated, weakening the claim of separate terminals. colerc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.161.122 (talk) 01:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have any good pictures of the terminal that you can post on this page? The immigration halls is not exactly the most interesting part of this great and hugely important terminal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardnyc (talk • contribs) 00:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is there absolutely nothing in this article, save for a small mention?

Of the recent terror plot against JFK International? I can find very few news items or sources about this anywhere, save for the linked article or the tiny mention in the section for accidents and other incidents.

Does anyone else find this a bit weird? 76.18.140.105 22:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

In the grand scheme of things, the alleged plot is a minor footnote in the airport's history, so it really shouldn't get much more than a small mention in this article. It should link to a larger article specifically about the plot, though - but nobody's written it yet. Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, after all. FCYTravis 23:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Alleged plot. Heh. NPOV might be nice, Travis. 208.111.222.96 00:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV is exactly why I said "alleged plot," good sir. All crimes are alleged until proven otherwise by admissions of guilt or a conviction in a court of law. My personal opinion on the existence of the plot is of no consequence - what does matter is fundamental fairness and the justice system. If we start ruling people guilty before they've been convicted, we're no better than the Iranians. FCYTravis 00:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"we're no better than the Iranians" - rather ironic in a discusion about NPOV ;-) (although for what it's worth, I agree totally with that statement, however POV it may be). Blood Red Sandman 16:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Travis, as far as the criminal justice systems is concerned, the accused is innocent until proven guilty. This principle of one field does not apply universally. It would make little sense to say, for instance, that a witness to a crime should reserve judgment on whether the person was guilty until a jury verdict were reached. "Innocent until proven guilty" has a lot less application than people seem to think. It's not a rule of truth, it's a rule of a small number of cases in the United States judicial system (most are civil cases anyway). So, even in the courts, "innocent until proven guilty" is applicable to less than a majority of cases. 208.111.222.96 22:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The rule of "innocent until proven guilty" is applicable to all Misplaced Pages articles, and that's what we're discussing here. FCYTravis 07:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

A plot cannot be proven guilty, nor can it be presumed innocent. It's not a criminal defendant; it's not even a person. Stop embarassing yourself, Travis. 153.104.14.64 17:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The existence of the plot is not proven until those who allegedly devised it are convicted in a court of law of the conspiratorial crimes related to its creation. It's a pretty simple concept, really. This situation is not like a crime of physical violence or property loss, where the death, injury or theft is provable whether or not anyone is ever charged with a crime. (It would be rather silly to say "alleged murder" where there is a body lying in a pool of blood with 10 gunshot wounds, after all.) In this case, there is no independently verifiable evidence that the plot exists, outside the statements of FBI officials and federal prosecutors. Given that the allegation that the plot exists is a point of legal contention, and that it has not yet been proven in a court of law, it is an alleged plot. Stop embarrassing yourself, anonymous user. FCYTravis 19:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:JFKAirportFromAir.JPG

This is a very poor picture, both in illustrating the subject and in composition and I have removed it from the head of the article. The diagram it replaced did a much better job of representing the article visually. Cumulus Clouds 15:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Calgary on Northwest Airlines

There has been some editing disputes on whether or not Calgary should be listed as a destination. Per WP:AIRPORTS, we do not list thru flights that require a connection at one of its hubs. Should Calgary be listed as a destination for NWA? Bucs2004 16:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should include it. Like you said, the flight goes through a NWA hub, so really CGY is a destination from whatever hub its coming from, and not JFK. Sox23 19:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Brussels on BA?

Is there a source for this? The BA website doesn't show any JFK-BRU flights that aren't connecting flights for May, June or July 2008. 21:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Brussels Airports has New York-JFK listed as a destination for BA but i have removed it from that page. Bucs2004 (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Travel Time Inaccuracies

The Article says:

Alot of this is inaccurate.

Getting to Manhattan by the AirTrain and the subway's A-train takes much longer than the E,J, and Z trains, though still not nearly a 75-minute trip. The A-Train station at Howard Beach is closer than Jamaica Station or Sutphin Boulevard though not by a whole lot. The A commutes to Manhattan via traveling all the way through souther and central Queens, through Brooklyn and into Manhattan, with a fairly lengthy commute time for a Subway though 75 minutes it may not be. The latter three trains simply travel west through northern Queens, with the J and Z using the Queensboro Bridge and the expedient E train using Queens Boulevard and a tunnel. As far as the LIRR goes, the majority of people use it to connect to the AirTrain and not vice versa. It wouldn't make much sense to use it to get to Manhattan.

-Alan 24.184.184.177 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

El Al

El Al operates out of Terminal 4 not 8. They have since Terminal 4 was built and I know of no plans for this to change. I work in Terminal 8 so I would know.

141.157.223.185 (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

American Airlines + Terminal 8+9

As of 02.16.08, American Airlines has vacated Terminal 8 and moved to Terminal 9 (leaving the remaining airlines it shared with in Terminal 9 there) Xatticus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.251.204 (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

BA London-City Flights

Has BA announced flights to LCY from NYC yet...some sources say just to New York City but not saying service will be from JFK or Newark. Cause I just removed it again from the destinations list. Couldn't find anything to back this up. Thanks!! 74.183.173.237 (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

OpenSkies

Will OpenSkies operate flights from JFK to CDG or ORY? Since OpenSkies is not listed on the Charles de Gaulle Airport...instead it is listed on the Orly Airport page instead. 220.249.22.135 (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not yet very experienced with Misplaced Pages, so I did not make any edits on the JFK airport page. But I am wondering why there are so few images of the airport and its terminals and so little information about JFK, which is the most important international getaway in the United States. There are no pictures of JFK Airtrain, no view of the great terminal 4 (only a picture showing the passport control area which is certainly not the highlight of this tremendous terminal), etc.. There are no images of the new Jet Blue terminal that is currently under construction and is scheduled to open in the Fall of 2008. The page on Israel's Ben Gurion Airport which was a featured article on Misplaced Pages short time agi, I think, is a good example of how the JFK should look like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardnyc (talk • contribs) 00:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Redevelopment

Have a look at this. http://www.asicma.com/visor.aspx?Id=1963&ed=11 Has info on terminal 2 and 3. Goldwing 5000 (talk) 06:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

China Airlines bus service

I don't see the exact addresses of boarding points for the China Airlines complimentary buses as being encyclopedic. See WP:TRAVEL. Other public transports do not have exact addresses, so why this less important one? We have two online references so anyone interested in further details can already click there and find out. At LAX the CI bus mention is down to neighborhood level only. HkCaGu (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Original Name

The article first states the the original name was Idlewild Airport, then it was changed, and then changed again to New York International. Later in the article it states that Idlewild was the unofficial name, and that the airport was dedicated New York International Airport. This is a little confusing. Could someone clarify what the first name official name of the airport was?71.246.103.112 (talk) 08:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Houston Bush

Changed the shorthand name "Houston-Intercontinental" to "Houston-Bush" in the listing of destinations, because that Houston airport's official name was changed several years ago to George Bush Intercontinental Airport" and the shorter "Houston-Bush" is the most common shorthand name used now.

Kid Controller

I know there has been one attempt already to put it on the article and I agreed with the removal to the reference. It could be that this will all simply fade away without major repercussions or minor reprimands and be forgotten. To prevent any future edit wars, perhaps we should wait to see what the official outcome would be? If it gets out of hand, we could always add it later. just my .02 --Hourick (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

DL Terminals

Right now it looks like we need to update the terminals for Delta though that is not certain. Right now, the terminals listed are for where you check in, not where you fly out of. Right now, the article states all Delta and Delta Connection flights (except LHR, LAX, SFO, and a couple in 4) are in Terminal 3 but in real life, Delta uses Terminals 2, 3, and 4. Last time I was there, Delta had domestic mainlines both at T2 and T4 (personally, my flight to PHX was in T4) and all DCI flights were out of 2. Right now though, this falls under Original Research so I haven't changed it until I find an actual source. redlegsfan21 (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

On August 16, 2010, I edited the info about Delta's T2, T3 and T4 based on official governmental, aiport authority and airline press releases. In the T4 section, I added a link to a photo showing and additional 11 regional jet gates to T4's B-wing and 9 gates to the A-wing. These gates are not mentioned in the official press releases. Additionally, the photo has since dissapeared from the official press releases. People at airliners.net's Civil Aviation Forum captured the photo before it dissappeared. The forum people are calling the additional gates, "Phase 2". We need some confirmation that the additional gate plans are really being considered, and not just some architect's dream. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.70.71.24 (talk) 11:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Now that Terminal 3 is closed the gates in Terminal 2 have been renumbered as C60-C70. I put in an edit in to reflect this but someone reverted it even though Delta and Port Authority show this to be true on their pages. I don't have the exact numbers for which ones have jetways and which are commuter gates but revert to gate numbers in the 20's is clearly not correct. Perhaps someone with more info, and more patience for incorrect reverts, can correct and clarify this. (http://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US/traveling-with-us/airports-and-aircraft/airports/new-york-jfk.html) Skywayman (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The "KIA" code

For some reason people like to think the airport got a three-letter code "KIA" when it was renamed for JFK. Can't speak for IATA, but FAA and the Official Airline Guide always called it "JFK". The NY Times had an article around 1 Jan 1964 about the new JFK code. (Looks like an airport coded KIA already existed, in New Guinea.)Tim Zukas (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC) 24.130.250.190 (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Cargo airlines and destinations

Hi guys, I've just added a list of scheduled cargo airlines and their destinations served from JFK. I hope you like it. These flights are all operating on a regular basis, and the information is verifiable by the airlines' timetables (in some cases this reference might not have been included in the respective airline articles yet, but I will sort this issue out, too). I dare say that I cannot find any reason why this list should be unsuitable for the airport article, as it describes the importance of the airport (which is the sense of the whole Misplaced Pages article). Obviously, there is no consensus on whether to include cargo dest-lists (for example, ORD, LAX or HNL feature such lists, but ANC or EWR not), but IMO it can stay as long as only regular, scheduled and properly referenced services are included, as should be the case here. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

it's great. Good job ! Jrenier (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

11 April 2011

• On 11 April 2011, Air France 007, an A380, preparing to depart for Paris Charles de Gaulle at JFK airport, collided while taxiing with a Comair CRJ-700 (Comair 553 / Delta Connection 6293) which had just arrived from Boston.

So, should this be added to the list of incidents? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Improved:

• On April 11, 2011, Air France Flight 007, an Airbus A380, while taxiing for departure to Paris, had its left wing strike the tail of Comair Flight 553, a CRJ-700 which had just arrived from Boston. There were no injuries to passengers.

I think this should be recorded — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmyeditor (talk • contribs) 02:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

References

1. Flight Global, "VIDEO: Air France A380 hits CRJ while taxiing at JFK", David Kaminski-Morrow, 11 April 2011
2. CBS News, "Air France Airbus Collides With Delta Jet On Ground At JFK Airport", 11 April 2011
3. Flight Global, "VIDEO: Air France A380 hits CRJ while taxiing at JFK", David Kaminski-Morrow, 11 April 2011
4. CBS News, "Air France Airbus Collides With Delta Jet On Ground At JFK Airport", 11 April 2011

Sources

• Wilson, Linda J. "JFK Airport' Tells Story Of U.S. Commercial Aviation." The Queens Gazette. July 15, 2009.
• Dunlap, David W. "A Modern Masterpiece, No Longer Used, Will Soon Disappear at Kennedy Airport." The New York Times. October 6, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Construction and Dedication Dates.

The dates for start of construction and completion as stated in the article may be incorrect. I attended the dedication of what was then called New York International Airport and was given a commerative coin which I still have, that has a date of July 6, 1946 for the dedication, and states construction started in April, 1942 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.1.39.236 (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Question is, what does "dedication" mean? Probably everyone agrees scheduled airlines didn't appear at Idlewild until July 1948, but maybe someone in a Piper Cub could legally have landed there before that? Tim Zukas (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Destination Map

I have looked at the JFK destination map, and it seems to be missing Singapore as a destination country. Singapore Airlines flies JFK-FRA-SIN and while there is a stopover, Singapore is definitely a destination country. Perhaps somebody could tell me how to edit the map to reflect that. The dog2 (talk) 06:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:John F. Kennedy International Airport/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jetstreamer (talk · contribs) 23:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC) As per these guidelines, I'm quick-failing the nomination. A brief look at the article shows a number of unsourced paragraphs. Moreover, there's a {{refimprove}} tag at this section, which is my main concern. I suggest both the nominator and all the major contributors to this article to address these issues before re-nominating.--Jetstreamer  23:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Misplaced Pages. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.airport-technology.com/projects/jfk/

  Triggered by \bairport-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II _Online 12:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Use of "JFK" in History section

Since the History section is mostly about the airport before 1963, it seems confusing that the "JFK" abbreviation is used throughout to refer to the airport. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 15:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Viracopos is known as São Paulo-Campinas

There is a new flight scheduled to begin on December 2, 2014, connecting the Viracopos International Airport to the JFK Airport. However, as the airport is at a close distance from the actual city of São Paulo, it is marketed by airline carriers as São Paulo-Campinas and not Campinas-Viracopos. I think this should be changed. Jgsodre (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Qantas SYD-LAX-JFK

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Qantas_SYD-LAX-JFK - TheChampionMan1234 02:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on John F. Kennedy International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131126083532/http://www.panynj.gov:80/corporate-information/pdf/board_minutes_feb_6_2013-final.pdf to http://www.panynj.gov/corporate-information/pdf/board_minutes_feb_6_2013-final.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140110215449/http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/US%20International%20Air%20Passenger%20and%20Freight%20Statistics%20Report%20for%20June%202013.pdf to http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/US%20International%20Air%20Passenger%20and%20Freight%20Statistics%20Report%20for%20June%202013.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

JetBlue

JetBlue Airways uses JFK as an operating base not a hub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Townroswell (talk • contribs) 00:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

JFK is considered a "hub" as it has been well discussed on the JetBlue talk page. 97.85.118.142 (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

JFK-HAV

I removed the destination "Charter: Havana" under American Airlines but my edit was quickly reverted. I can find no sources indicating that American flies this route. Also, I see two sources indicating that American flies other charters to HAV, but not from JFK. If anyone would like to provide a source other than another Misplaced Pages page showing the revert was correct, that would be great.Jim0101 (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jim0101: Hi Jim0101, the only reason that I had reverted your edit in the first place was because you never removed JFK as a destination at the Havana airport article. From this I assumed that the route had been sourced awhile ago and the source had been moved awhile ago... Now that you mention it though, I can't find anything regarding AA JFK-HAV flights. I only see JetBlue operating this route... Astral Heat (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.aa.com/i18n/urls/cuba.jsp?anchorLocation=DirectURL&title=visitcuba
2. https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/Charters%202015%20as%20of%20December%2016%2C%202015.pdf

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140304071756/http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/200900925/FREE/909259988 to http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/200900925/FREE/909259988

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Stop deleting the note links

Whoever keeps deleting the references for the notes, please stop. The refs are there because it is referencing the notes, which give extra information about that flight. (Ex. Refueling stopover)

MacftraxMC (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chmhotel.com/property.php?id=394
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0111/17/smn.21.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://newsalerts.delta.com/2016-06-07-Delta-doubles-network-to-Scotland-with-new-route-between-New-York-JFK-and-Glasgow#assets_117
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927144956/http://www.cargolux.com/nop/nopSearchInternet.do to http://www.cargolux.com/nop/nopSearchInternet.do
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110309183728/http://www.jfkiat.com:80/ to http://www.jfkiat.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121004104510/https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/opdm/aviation/repository/air_dir/jfk.pdf to https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/opdm/aviation/repository/air_dir/jfk.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Air India to Mumbai

It seems to be difficult as whether or not Mumbai should be added as an Air India destination from New York. AI flew JFK-BOM nonstop until 2010, and now offers a same-number (AI 102) service JFK-DEL-BOM via Delhi. However, according to FlightRadar24.com, there are occasionally plane changes at Delhi from 777-300ER to another 777-300ER or even the occasional 747 or 777-200. Should Mumbai be kept as a destination as the physical plane used from JFK sometimes does not continue to Mumbai?

For example, SQ 25 JFK-FRA-SIN must be on the same plane as SQ does not have any other aircraft available at FRA. AI has tons of aircraft at Delhi as that is their hub, so subs are quite frequent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallacevio (talk • contribs) 01:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Wallacevio: It's not that big issue as you are making it. AI 102 (JFK-DEL-BOM)/ AI 101 (BOM-DEL-JFK) is a daily direct flight. You are simply pointing to a random source and misinterpreting that source. This source suggested by you makes it clear that the daily flight AI 102 at minimum flies in same aircraft every third day and at maximum can fly in same aircraft on consecutive days also. Correspondingly, it can be said that this flight either don't change aircraft or if it does, it does that on third day; but it never change aircraft on consecutive day basis. Please analyse your source carefully. This is quite common with daily direct flights. Is this a reason for expressing doubt regarding mentioning a direct flight destination on an article ? Well, you not only expressed doubt but removed the concerned destination beforehand without any consensus or discussion.

And since you have started this discussion, it's upto you to establish consensus before removing Mumbai from destinations. Nevertheless, the fact as per your suggested source remains that at minimum, the concerned flight flies in same aircraft every third day. By every third day, I mean every third day. At maximum (if not every third day), it flies in same airplane in consecutive days also. Check the source. We have so many mono-weekly, bi-weekly, tri-weekly and so on kind of direct flights. Will you suggest to remove them just because they do not fly daily ? You are simply making an issue out of a useless thing. Vibhss (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Wallacevio: Delhi is not the only hub of Air India. Air India maintains primary hub at Delhi and a secondary hub at Mumbai. Till now (see the previous message), my explanation was factual. Coming to the logical side, just an argument (even though we have much more than this argument) that the given direct flight (here, it is a daily direct flight) operates in same aircraft in entire journey on "most of the days of its operation" is enough to support the inclusion of the destination of that flight in the concerned airport article. Collecting all these facts together, your naive assumption, "there seems to be disagreement on whether or not BOM should be added" seems to be restricted to you only. Knowing that AI 102 mostly operates in same aircraft throughout its journey, why do you still disagree in including BOM ? Does the daily flight to BOM need to fly in same aircraft on all seven days of week (if not on most days) so that BOM could be included ? Considering your views and confusions, you should have established consensus on whether it could be removed or not instead of your removing it first and then asking other users to establish consensus for including it again. Though there is no necessity of continuing this discussion, still I'll try to engage more editors in this discussion to seek more opinions. Vibhss (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Plain and simple none of this is important and it is clear that this flight does not qualify for inclusion under the through hub rule and the same plane rule. Such detail is not what Misplaced Pages is for and also fails WP:OR. And by the way it is up to you as the person introducing the information to gain the consensus that this is valid - and I'm suspecting there is no such consensus. Andrewgprout (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Plain & simple. Mostly, this flight do not change aircraft. It is changing aircraft occasionally either on third day (mostly) or on fourth day (rarely) but never on second or consecutive day. The only source due to which this discussion cum debate started proves it. What about the other days when it flies in same aircraft ? This flight operates daily. It is direct same aircraft flight either on every third day (mostly) or on every second day (rarely) but never on fourth day. How does WP:OR applies here ? That it is a "same aircraft" flight on every third day or on every second day is being "interpreted" from source in the same manner as the flight being "different aircraft" on every third day or every fourth day is being "interpreted". How is former original research and latter not ? The source does not explicitly mentions whether the flight is changing plane or not. It's upto the observer to "interpret" correctly by seeing the type of aircraft and then generalize. Is this original research ? Vibhss (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I was invited by Vibhss to comment here. I think one key point here is WP:OR. I'd not use Flightradar as a source. What I would do is to look at the airline's timetable. I did this, and requested the system to show direct flights only. The timetable shows AI102 as a direct flight, with a stopover of 2 hours and 10 minutes at DEL. This warrants inclusion.--Jetstreamer  22:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm interpreting bullet #7 as the inclusion of through hub direct services should be avoided, regardless of plane changes or not. Garretka (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

It is a direct flight with one stop.--Jetstreamer  22:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Garretka: Mumbai is the secondary hub of Air India (primary hub being Delhi). Mumbai is not a "spoke-city" as bullet #7 says. The particular content you are referring to in bullet#7 applies on direct flights starting from spoke-city and having layover at domestic hub. And of course, what guarantees the accuracy/ correctness of flightradar.com. It is one of those many websites giving flight and airline information. Thanks Jetstreamer (talk · contribs). Vibhss (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand that it's a direct flight with one stop. My point was whether or not Mumbai is considered a hub. What exactly is the differentiator between a primary and secondary hub, as is the case here? Garretka (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Garretka: Well, you can see difference between primary and secondary hub here. Due to capacity constraints at primary hub, an airline forms forms a secondary hub. Both these are placed together and whether they are primary or secondary, they are hubs. Since bullet #7 refers to only "domestic hub", this surely incorporates both primary and secondary hubs. Since this is a flight from secondary domestic hub - primary domestic hub - foreign city, the particular bullet#7 content can't apply here. And then, regarding aircraft change. Is flightradar.com a reliable and dependable source ? Are we going to maintain Airlines Tables as per this source ? The Air India Time Table clearly mentions the given flight as a direct flight with same type of aircraft. Vibhss (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Ultimately, they are both hubs, so bullet #7 should and would apply. I do have an issue with the way that particular bullet is worded, but that's a different discussion. Regarding sources, airline timetables tend to be the most accurate source of information. I'm not a fan of flight tracking websites as sources. Garretka (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Garretka: Actually, when I said, "the particular bullet#7 content can't apply here", I meant to the content prohibiting inclusion of direct flights from "spoke-cities" through domestic hubs. Of course, the rest of the content is applicable. But you can't compare a secondary hub with a "spoke-city". Anyways, you agree that airline timetables tend to be the most accurate source of information. Right ? Vibhss (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding my point. The flight goes from hub to hub to spoke, which I would consider to be a through hub direct service, which is what bullet 7 is all about. Yes I have always been an advocate for airline timetables being used as they are the most accurate, and I do understand they are listed as direct in this case. We just need to be mindful that through hub direct flights should not be listed. Garretka (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Garretka: I am not misunderstanding you. The bullet#7 mentions "avoid listing direct flights that contain a stop at a domestic hub, as virtually all of these are simply flights from one "spoke city" to a hub, with the plane continuing from the hub to a second spoke city." But here in case of this flight, it starts from a domestic hub, have a layover at another domestic hub and then flies to first spoke-city. So, this flight is not only through hub but it is from hub and through hub. It has to be included definitely. And bullet #10 mentions clearly that the Airline's published Timetable is the implicit source for current destinations. Unless a particular destination is not mentioned in timetable, there is no need for an explicit source. And since Air India Time Table mentions BOM-DEL-JFK/ JFK-DEL-BOM flight in direct flights, Mumbai should be definitely included. Flightradar.com is non-verifiable and unreliable. How can it be used in place of published timetable of Air India ? Vibhss (talk) 09:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from - but you're fixating on words. Perhaps through hub direct isn't the best describer - timetable direct is a better word. Timetable directs, it does contain a stop at a hub, should not be included. I feel it doesn't matter that it doesn't originate at a spoke or a hub as long as it stops at a hub. This is the issue I have with the wording of that bullet. Again, be mindful of timetable direct flights. Virtually all airlines in North America have timetable direct flights that are not listed, what's the special occasion with this one? Garretka (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Garretka: I still disagree with you. A flight travelling from a spoke-city to a domestic hub to another spoke-city (in foreign country) is different from a flight travelling from a domestic hub to another domestic hub to a foreign spoke-city. Maybe, there should be a discussion on this topic elsewhere, perhaps at WT: AIRLINES. This discussion was started here by a user referring to a random flight tracking website documenting occasional change in aircraft by the concerned direct flight. Vibhss (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jetstreamer: What do you think ? Do you think Mumbai should be included now ? Though bullet #10 and Air India Time Table are agreeing with each other, the particular content of bullet #7 appears to be unclear. Can you throw light on this ? Vibhss (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

BOM warrants an inclusion as it is a direct flight with one stop. @Garretka:, your argument is invalid.

How does bullet #7 not apply? It's a flight through a 'hub', with the same flight number. Direct flights through hubs are not included, for the reasons explained. Figuring out if it's same aircraft is more often than not WP:OR. Also, incorrect irrespective of stops. If that stop is a hub, the first city is not listed. I'm indifferent to whether it be included or not, I'm just bringing a logical defence to the table. Garretka (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Garretka: As explained before, Mumbai is a secondary hub of Air India. When a direct flight starts from a hub and makes a layover at another hub, how can that particular content of bullet#7 apply here which refers to flights from one "spoke city" to a hub, with the plane continuing from the hub to a "second spoke city" ? I am not fixating with words as you said. According to bullet #7, both non-stop and direct flights must be included. However, some direct flights (as explained before) must not be included. There is a reason why an airline has declared two airports as hubs. Whether they are primary or secondary, the meaning of hub remains same for both and both are different from Focus city. Therefore, neither virtually nor actually, Mumbai acts as a spoke city. To understand "Spoke–hub distribution paradigm", you can have this example (just a hypothetical example which correctly indicates meaning of spoke and hub):

As you can see this image, Los Angeles and Denver are acting as hubs. Both the hubs are interconnected. Similar thing goes with Delhi and Mumbai. Vibhss (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@LeoFrank: Thanks for joining this discussion. Though I don't know why a discussion is going on regarding an obvious direct flight which has been included in this article right from its commencement. As you can see, a user started this discussion citing a random flight tracking website (whose validity and accuracy is questionable). On the other hand, as I already said, bullet #10 mentions to use airline's published timetable as implicit source for current destinations. (Garretka), if you disagree regarding Timetable directs, then please ask those who made these rules instead of questioning me. The issue over which this discussion is going on (a random flight tracking website mentioning "occasional aircraft changes on 3rd day or 4th day but never on 2nd or consecutive day") seems to be pretty trivial. What guarantees accuracy of this site ? It's content is also somewhat confusing for general readers to understand. Can this discussion be resolved faster ? Vibhss (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sounding like a broken record. Mumbai is a hub. I, nor the reader, care if it is a primary or secondary hub. A hub is a hub. It is a stop. Regardless of flight number. It should not be included as per the points I've made. I've stated my opinion on this matter, and frankly you saying the same thing over again is not progressing this discussion any further. Timetable directs are strictly against bullet #7. I agree flight tracking websites are not reliable sources, but the inclusion of this is where I'm recommending people take a second look. Garretka (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Garretka: If you don't care to read full meaning of bullet #7 (not "interpreted" by me but conveyed by that bullet itself) that I explained again and again, then it's your folly. And why do you claim that all Timetable directs are against bullet #7 ? Only those (yet again I am telling) travelling from one spoke city to another spoke city through a domestic hub are not to be included. That is what bullet #7 says. A hub (Mumbai here) certainly don't equals a spoke-city. Please read complete bullet #7 again. And your claims don't reflect anything of bullet #7 but indeed contradict bullet #10. Vibhss (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

You're really picking at words. How is this case any different? It's travelling from a city to a city via a hub. Quite frankly I don't see the difference but, as you were. Garretka (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Garretka: Well, the difference is in the involvement of two hubs and one spoke city. While bullet #7 explicitly states to avoid listing direct flights "from one spoke-city to a hub to second spoke-city". Read it. And again, as I showed you in the above diagram, a hub certainly doesn't equal to a spoke-city in any case (virtual or actual). If it did, this would rule out and ignore the existence of starting point (Mumbai) as hub (of Air India). Thus, only New York is the spoke-city here. And it were you, who said you wouldn't care if it is primary or secondary hub and would consider it only hub. Then how can you undermine one of the hubs as a spoke-city ? Vibhss (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't edit much on Misplaced Pages. But I just happened to come across this page. A question is suddenly being raised by a user regarding a current direct flight destination which has been mentioned in this article for very long time. The user cites one among the lot of flight tracking sites.

@Wallacevio: Mostly, flight tracking sites don't agree with each other. If you can point to a FlightRadar24.com source mentioning "occasional" change in aircraft by the particular direct flight, I also have this source (also a flight tracking site) which clearly mentions that both legs of AI 102 direct flight are completed in same aircraft. Check this source (mentioning aircraft type for both legs as Boeing 777-300ER) and this source also. (not mentioning aircraft type at all). I can mention a dozen of such sites. The reliability of all such sites (including your flightradar24.com) is questionable and such sites can't be used as sources. As rightly explained by Vibhss, bulletin #10 insists on using the published timetables by airlines as sources for current destinations. And Air India Time Table exactly mentions AI102 as direct flight with same type of aircraft. This warrants Mumbai's inclusion in the table. Digangana (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Digangana: Wonderful ! I was busy in explaining to some users that "through hub" content of bulletin #7 can't apply here. I should have instead mentioned the above so-called sources to enlighten the initiator of this discussion. Anyways, it can be resolved soon. Vibhss (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Vibhss: I don't think there is any other scope left for this discussion. Since it started because of a flight tracking site mentioning "occasional change" of aircraft by this flight and now that other flight tracking sites conflicting with the latter are being highlighted, the fact that all these sites (incl. the first) have questionable reliability is established. Better we go as per Air India's timetable which mentions AI 101/102 as a direct flight with same type of aircraft and that definitely warrants inclusion of BOM. Digangana (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay! I am including back BOM. There is really nothing left to be discussed. Thanks Digangana. Vibhss (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

NO tracking sites are not WP:RS and even if they were they are WP:PRIMARY and should be used with caution. Overall this particular detail is totally unimportant to an encyclopaedia and probably should not be included. There is considerable danger in being overly pedantic with details such as this - the further you go down the pedantic track the. Closer to WP:NOTTRAVEL such details become. Just saying. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Qantas to Sydney

I think the direct destination which Qantas flies to should be Sydney, and not Brisbane. Even through it switches plane, the flight number remains the same for both legs between JFK to LAX and LAX to SYD. However, while the same aircraft is used for JFK to LAX and LAX to BNE, the flight number changes, meaning they are different flights that happen to use the same aircraft. If you look at the Sydney Airport website, it lists New York JFK as a direct destination from it AND the New York JFK website lists Sydney as a direct destination from it. Thanks. --Agent5514 (talk) 07:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Agent5514: What happens is that QF 12 flight number is JFK-LAX-SYD. However, the physical aircraft (747-400) from JFK-LAX continues to Brisbane, not Sydney. But then the 747 operates on 2 different flight numbers QF 12 and QF 16. The LAX-SYD and LAX-MEL flights are both operated by A380, which does not fly JFK-LAX ever. Effectively, there is no way to fly from New York to Australia on Qantas on a direct 1-stop flight with both the same aircraft and same flight number. By this logic, Qantas should not be included in the JFK destinations table at all, but how should we address this since QF still serves the airport?

• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class aviation articles
• C-Class airport articles
• WikiProject Airports articles
• WikiProject Aviation articles
• C-Class New York City articles
• High-importance New York City articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• C-Class New York (state) articles
• Mid-importance New York (state) articles
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in New York City
• Selected anniversaries (July 2014)