Talk:Flying Voyage Tips and guide

Contents

This discussion page contains the topics that formerly resided in both Talk:Fundamentals of flying and Talk:Tips for flying

So, I removed a tip to the tune of, "Report anyone suspicious or different to airline personnel immediately." Reporting people who are different seems a little spooky. Can anyone give a better way to say this? Without sounding too McCarthyist? --(WT-en) Evan 02:12, 4 Jun 2004 (EDT)

Well, it did say "acting different" rather than just "are different". I'd immediately report anyone who was not different from myself in any way!

Seriously, I'd just as soon leave it out (and the other safety tips are questionable as well). Tips should be things that you can do to improve your own experience and prevent likely problems. Looking out for terrorists will not do either of those to any degree. -- (WT-en) Paul Richter 12:27, 4 Jun 2004 (EDT)

this may mean you have the chance of obtaining compensation if you volunteer to be bumped, or this may mean your day is made hell as the airline refuse to board you, despite having a prepaid and confirmed flight ticket

Could anyone re-state this more clearly? I'm not sure I understand the complex question well enough for simplyfing it myself.

In my experience, there may be choice on what route your flight will be changed to, but it is really rare case when traveller may decide to not fly at all, even for some compensantion. Another point I'd like to add is that, for example, Austrian Airlines offers 600EUR compensation IN ADDITION to alternative way to flight, not INSTEAD of it. I believe it would be smart to collect such experiences, as such compensation policies are internal to specific companies and are never published officially. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 06:18, 17 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Those €600 is according to the european rules for delays > 4hours. --(WT-en) elgaard 06:35, 17 Oct 2005 (EDT)

I added a short note of EU rules here and a longer on Europe --(WT-en) elgaard 07:11, 17 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Thanks for sharing info. I left a question in the talk page there, to make your paragraph there even more clear.

As for my initial request here, could you help to explain (or simplify) the piece quoted above? Thanks.

--(WT-en) DenisYurkin 08:24, 17 Oct 2005 (EDT)

I do not think it can be simplified as it depends a lot on the airline and what part of the world it is. I.e. Austrian airlines is part of Star Alliance and can get you another flight to most destinations with a short delay. But many discount airlines only have one flight a day and will probably not give you a ticket to another airline. --(WT-en) elgaard 08:51, 17 Oct 2005 (EDT)

I tried to re-state the original paragraph more explicitly, with simpler words. Let me know if I changed the meaning somewhere. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 12:13, 17 Oct 2005 (EDT)

" should ask passengers for volunteers who decide not to flight in exchange for benefits" is unclear. What does "should" mean. Is there some regulation and if so we should have a link to it. Also I do not think it is a very european thing. I have seen it in the US and Canada but never in Europe. --(WT-en) elgaard 15:02, 17 Oct 2005 (EDT)

I don't have official info on such regulations beyond Europe, which you cited on the Europe#Passengers Rights page. Do you suggest to add US and Canada to the list?

Would the following re-phrasing be closer to truth? " may ask passengers for volunteers..." --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:20, 17 Oct 2005 (EDT)

I think so, and drop the Europe part. --(WT-en) elgaard 16:45, 17 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Done; check it out. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 02:57, 18 Oct 2005 (EDT)

I have some problems with this tip. It is predicated on the notion that you have to clear security between flights, which is nonsense on domestic flights at most airports, and ignores the fact that airports differ widely in their ease of getting around. Text revision follows. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:26, 24 Sep 2005 (EDT)

I haven't been over here in a while, and this has turned into a exemplar "Tips for..." article. The random bullet points layout of many of them is depressing, this is a breath of fresh air. (WT-en) Hypatia 23:27, 24 July 2006 (EDT)

> Most airlines will now periodically show video programs you can follow to get some exercise in your seat

I've never seen such videos on any of european carriers--was it meant primarily US carriers? Changed to SOME instead of MOST in a meanwhile. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 04:26, 6 November 2006 (EST)

> In some airports, security of checked luggage is also an issue, as contents may be stolen by airport personnel while the baggage is in transit to and from your plane.

In early-90s Russia this was also the case, especially when many people bought PCs and VCRs in Moscow and they brought it themselves to their regions by air. Typical solution for that in Russia was to bribe personnel who normally handles luggage after it's checkied in.

Does it make sense to put a recommendation like this? BTW, Justfred, in what countries do you think it still happens? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 06:09, 28 November 2006 (EST)

It's a good idea anywhere in the world not to check in valuables. Not only is there the risk of theft, but things like laptops, cameras and bottles break easily if checked-in. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:23, 28 November 2006 (EST)

It's happened to me, in the St. Louis Airport, about 4 years ago (don't recall pre- or post- 911). CD player, bunch of CDs, GPS, cables - I zip-tie my bag pockets and it had been opened and removed between Delta checkin in St. Louis and rolling down the bag rack in San Diego. Airlines don't care (boilerplate letter, sorry for your loss, we take no responsibility, take it up with your homeowner's insurance - Thanks, Delta!)--(WT-en) justfred 11:21, 28 November 2006 (EST)

I suggest to recommend to lock all luggage for check-in. This should help considerably--although there's no guarantees here, as in anything else. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 11:38, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Actually, you're not allowed to lock it, except with special locks that airport personnel have keys to, or are allowed to cut off.--(WT-en) justfred 12:33, 28 November 2006 (EST)

I've never encountered any airline that doesn't allow to use your own locks (or to use build-in locks many cases have out of the box). Is this the case for flights within US/for US careers?--(WT-en) DenisYurkin 13:09, 28 November 2006 (EST)

Yeah, you need TSA approved locks, otherwise they'll just cut off the lock if they need to inspect your luggage. User:(WT-en) EricDerKonig206.154.229.139 12:50, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Just a couple of things about direct/nonstop flights. First, they are not always more expensive than those with mere stopovers. In fact, when I recently checked the price of tickets for a certain airline, those where one had to change planes/make a stopover turn out to be more expensive. Second, direct flights in some cases may not use the same aircraft on all legs. For instance, when I was travelling back to Manila from LA in 1999, I had to stopover via Osaka and we were on a certain flight number for Northwest. From LA to Osaka, we used a 747-200 while from Osaka to Manila, a 747-400 was utilised, all carrying the same flight number. Other things that can change in each leg of a direct flight is the crew who will be accompanying passengers on succeeding legs. Depending on the airline and airport, passengers continuing on a direct flight will have to a) stay on the aircraft, b) wait in the transit area to be reboarded onto that same aircraft, c) choose either a or b or d) change planes.

--58.69.5.94 02:26, 20 December 2006 (EST)

a, b, c are all true, but having to change planes on a direct flight is pretty darn unusual and I don't think you'll find any cases of this in a published schedule. (Look at it from the airline's point of view: why would they want to station a plane at the halfway point on a long route, never returning to home base?) Yet another reason to avoid Northwest like the plague they are... (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:49, 20 December 2006 (EST)

Another suggestion I have is to try to put a section dedicated to e-tickets and comparing and contrasting them with paper tickets, giving their respective pros and cons.

Plunge forward! (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:04, 20 December 2006 (EST)

When are paper tickets scheduled to be phased-out? --(WT-en) Jr traveller 21:08, 22 December 2006 (EST)

One of the tips in the said section says "Take a large bottle of water with you. Airliner cabins are very dry and drinking plenty of water helps to avoid dehydration." Aren't liquids, including bottled water brought in by passengers banned in some places unless purchased at stalls beyond security checkpoints? Besides, the "During the flight" section tells us that water is available upon request from the flight attendants. --210.5.110.56 10:44, 21 December 2006 (EST)

Yes, although that particular bit of "security theater" is not worldwide, and is hopefully temporary. Is it worth modifying the article? How about "If airline security allows it, take...". Of course that disclaimer could be placed upon the whole article - everything is subject to the whim of airline security.--(WT-en) justfred 11:56, 21 December 2006 (EST)

As for the banned liquids, do you know the specific limits in the US and the UK in terms of quantity and packaging (i.e. how many quarts should each liquid be and where should they fit-in)? --(WT-en) Jr traveller 11:59, 22 December 2006 (EST)

For the US, it's "1 quart-size, clear plastic, zip-top bag holding 3 ounces or smaller containers of liquids or gels. Each traveler is limited to 1 clear plastic bag of liquids" according to the TSA. See [1] for more. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 16:26, 22 December 2006 (EST)

Some airlines, particularly low budget carriers say to passengers that to keep prices low, they should pick-up rubbish, give them to the flight attendant as well as pick up pillows and blankets and keeping them on the seat? I would like to believe that is truth to this but is this really true? If so, what other moves do airlines suggest and why would these keep fares low? I would like to include a section like this in the article, thanks. --58.69.69.113 09:49, 22 December 2006 (EST)

What they're saying is that they haven't hired as many flight attendants per passenger (compared to more expensive airlines), and the only way this will work out - and they'll be able to continue doing it this way - is if passengers put in a little effort to make the job easier for those attendants. Of course it's also courteous to people who have an often-demanding job, and who don't have any say in how many people the airline hires anyway. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 21:19, 22 December 2006 (EST)

Is it all right if I create a separate/dedicated article walking through the common check-in methods, along with their pros, cons and when it is best to use them? --(WT-en) Jr traveller 01:47, 23 December 2006 (EST)

No, it's not alright. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but the article is sounding more and more like "Flying for total idiots" and half the stuff you've added has got to go. Or how about a "Flying for the first time" article, if you really want to parrot all the cabin crew announcements or explain what a seatbelt or boarding pass is? (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:31, 23 December 2006 (EST)

All right then, half of them should be gone soon. I apologise for making the article sound like "Flying 101." The next time I add, I will make sure they are tips or techniques to make the whole flight experience easier rather than a mere lecture about airline or airport SOPs. --(WT-en) Jr traveller 11:46, 23 December 2006 (EST)

I'd really suggest making two articles: one for first-time flyers, the other for 'experienced' flyers looking for ways to optimize their flights. Right now it's a poor combination of trivia that would intimidate first-timers (PNRs, nonendorsability etc) and "obvious" stuff that would make frequent flyers roll their eyes. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:31, 24 December 2006 (EST)

That's a good point, for instance, I don't like to hear much about what to expect in security since I have been travelling on airlines continuously for the past 9 out of 11 years but I believe that it is worth hearing about the expedited security options. My problem is which of the other tips are for veteran travellers and which ones are more likely to appeal to first-time travellers? Sometimes, the same tips can appeal to both. And who was this article intended for in the first place, first timers or veteran travellers? --(WT-en) Jr traveller 22:13, 24 December 2006 (EST)

Can someone clarify what 'Boarding time' means when printed on boarding ticket? Is it 'deadline for boarding' or 'boarding starts at'? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 14:06, 18 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Boarding starts at, and even then it's usually after the printed time. The gate closes (boarding stops) usually only 10-15 minutes before departure. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:32, 18 Oct 2005 (EDT)

We need a clarification in this article on what is considered an Extended/Long Delay (as used in Refund for delayed flight orOfficial Passenger Rights) vs Flight Cancellation. For example, when you have a 24-hour delay due to broken aircraft, which is promised to get repaired and then the flight by that aircraft will be provided (and any other flights by that time declared to be fully booked), is it a long delay or rather a cancelled flight? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 04:47, 6 November 2006 (EST)

It looks more convenient to have all the Passenger Rights-related information in a separate page: Overbooking, Flight Cancellation, Long Delays. The main reason for separation is that passenger rights info is needed when you least expect it, unlike the rest of Tips for flying that are read once, in advance and is hardly used during your flights. I would also move there the PassengerRights section from Europe#By plane to have all the related information in one place. Anyone would object on such a separation? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 06:59, 6 November 2006 (EST)

I would object. I think it's fine on this page, and the pointer in Europe should also stay where it is. (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:21, 6 November 2006 (EST)

Jpatokal, could you please provide your arguments more specifically? I gave mine, and can think of more. Let me show on a demo page how it may look like... --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 11:44, 7 November 2006 (EST)

There are only 3-4 paragraphs of information, I don't think it needs a standalone article. If you place it behind another link, even fewer people will find it. (WT-en) Jpatokal 11:57, 7 November 2006 (EST)

First, I would recommend taking passenger rights printed wherever you go on international trip--even for experienced fliers which Fundamentals of flying are not targeted to. You never know what kind of situation you will encounter, and you can't realistically learn all these rules, especially with specifics of "what applies to european carrier and what works worldwide" or "which carrier or flight is considered european in what situations". It's a 911-like reference, not an article you can once and remember for the rest of life. I think this alone is a good reason to have it as a separate article.

Second, along with details from PassengerRights in Europe (most of which actually belong here), it will be twice as much information.

Third, people will find it as good as they find Fundamentals of flying vs Tips for flying: if we have links to both from every relevant point, people will find it just as easily. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:45, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

I heard that according to some EU regulations, a delay in flight that overlapped working day for a passenger are subject to certain compensation. Does anyone know any official links to information like this? Any success stories known when a particular sum was compensated for a reason like this? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 13:09, 7 November 2006 (EST)

I am wondering if there any interest in creating a section about how we passengers can make life easier for the board crew?

For example, I'd welcome recommendations on how to make easier for stewards to welcome every passenger upon boarding, or to say goodbye to every one leaving the plane at the destination airport.

Personally, I can share the only tip for now--to encourage and support a crew member who faced mass complaints on passengers, in cases like long delay.

Any interest from the community in developing a section like this? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 15:51, 20 January 2007 (EST)

Good point Denis. Developed sub-para ("Helping the cabin crew" in "Fundamentals of flying"...long overdue, but there. (WT-en) Hennejohn 15:51, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

I once included a tip which involved giving rubbish to them when they walk down the aisle as it can be a way of keeping fares low according to others. Maybe we should include a section on what one can do to make these fares lower and write down making life easier for them as one way. --(WT-en) Jr traveller 01:28, 30 January 2007 (EST)

When would be the best time to book online and best time to book by physically going to a ticket office? What are the pros and cons of each? While I find online booking fascinating, the problem with it is that you have to pay immediately unlike when going to a ticket office where you are more likely allowed to hold it for a couple of days before payment is needed. Online booking can be frustrating if one requires a visa for his destination and there is no guarantee of it being granted. I suggest we make a subsection on that under planning your trip. --(WT-en) Jr traveller 05:08, 30 January 2007 (EST)

> Many of the on-line travel arrangers show statistics on how often a given flight arrives on time

Can we add some examples of such arrangers and the countries they have operations? I never seen such information with Russian online agents, and I don't remember seeing it at European arrangers (although I didn't have too many of them). --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 09:14, 24 February 2007 (EST)

There are thousands and thousands of airports out there. Are we going to list all or most of their websites in this article? Why don't we list the websites of the most traveled to/from airports instead?

We shouldn't list any bloody airport sites here, that's why we have destination guides! This once beautiful article has already degenerated into a steaming pile of turd, someday when I win free time in the lottery I'll carry out my threat to split it into "Flying for idiots" and "Flying for professionals". (WT-en) Jpatokal 13:06, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I don't think it's necessary to list them at all!

I've pulled the mass of Flying 101 material from this article and placed it in Fundamentals of flying. As Jpatokal has pointed out, this article had become a mishmash of tips for fairly experienced flyers, and a primer on how commercial air travel works, suitable for neither audience. I generally moved entire sections based on which they seemed most suitable for, and I may have moved/left information in the "wrong" article in the process; please feel free to make appropriate adjustments. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 11:21, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

What about moving back "special meals requested by ordinary people" and "Overbooking-Delayed flight-Flight Cancellation" passenger rights back into Tips for flying? Former is definitely not about 101, and the latter is not obvious and easy to remember even for experienced fliers, in my experience. Opinions? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:41, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I've moved the special-meals tip back here. Much of the airline-screw-overs sections is just "this is how it works" info, which seems to me to fit better in Fundamentals, and I didn't see an easy way to split for-exprienced-flyers content out of it. But like I said, this split was a hack job, so if anyone wants to fine-tune it, please do. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 12:26, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Six years later, someone has proposed merging them back. I would rather see the distinction between the two articles clarified, as I think the material here is too much for a single article. LtPowers (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not really proposing a merger as much as a large-scale shake-up of our flying content. What I'd like to see is the content of these two articles combined, but then 'districtified', with short, snappy sub-articles like 'Booking a flight'.--Nick (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

A lot of very short articles is not an improvement over a few long articles, IMO. LtPowers (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not necessarily saying there should be a lot, but the content of the 2 could probably be split into 3 separate articles: Booking a Flight; At the Airport; On the Plane without any of them becoming too short. At present I think it's a bit confusing as to which article one should refer to. We'd be better having 1 comprehensive flight article that we then districtified as we saw fit. --Nick (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I could see three. You might want to sandbox it first, though, since it's a big change. Especially since one of the articles was recently featured. LtPowers (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think that's a good idea. I'll try it in my userspace and see what monster emerges! --Nick (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is also being discussed in the pub. --Nick (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I wonder how Flight Cancellation and Overbooking in this article correspond to Denied Boarding in Europe. I would vote for consistency in terminology between the two pages, if we are still not ready to merge these two sections into a single page.

And if Denied Boarding also includes Flight Cancellation, I would add a link to European passenger rights from this piece, to which European policies are an exception:

> Unlike with overbooking, passengers are not legally entitled to any compensation except the unplanned expenses of food and hotels.

--(WT-en) DenisYurkin 09:09, 24 February 2007 (EST)

In the light of the Star nomination for this article, I give BUMP to my earlier suggestion to move passenger rights reference into a separate page. As all outstanding questions for this article refer to passenger rights, we will have enough time to work on them without stopping the Fundamentals to receive a Star nomination. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:50, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps we should change the title of this article. It sounds more like a book you'd find at the library on how to pilot a plane. At the very least, I think the word "airline" needs to be included. (WT-en) MMKK 22:36, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Concur with this suggestion...article now goes well-beyond "fundamentals" and focuses on actions by passengers. Suggestions? john henne January 2010

Given the split of Fundamentals of flying I wonder if we should consider a name change to make this one sound less like a grab bag of random thoughts editors might have on flying. "Tips for easier flying"? "Tips for frequent flyers"? (WT-en) Hypatia 19:18, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

"Smarter flying"??? (WT-en) Hypatia 11:22, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Support. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:41, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

I received the following email. Can anyone help with any information/advice? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 03:07, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

I would like to know whether Off-loading a passenger at an In-transit point due to over-booking is permissible ?

I had undertaken a trip from Riyadh- Saudi Arabia to Cochin (Kochi-India) in-transit via Colombo-Sri lanka

Unfortunately they have forcefully diverted my trip to another airport (almost a difference of 6 hrs road journey

Between the original destination and diverted airport). I was the first passenger reported at the counter to get boarding pass to my onward Journey to Kochi. The counter staff had printed out all Boarding Passes at a stretch and distributed and 3 passengers had been provided Boarding Passes to another destination and forced to travel accordingly. Since all 3 were trapped at an In-transit point, we have no other option but to forcefully go to other airport.

The clarification given by the airline was that the Colombo-Kochi Sector was overbooked and hence they off-loaded me/others at Colombo.

My claim is that I am an Riyadh-Kochi passenger and issuing the boarding pass at in transit point at Colombo is only formality and not Subject to any off-loading. If the Colombo-Kochi flight is overbooked, the passenger originated from Colombo has to be off-loaded that too the last passenger/s reported at the counter and not an in-Transit passenger like me.

I need your kind assistance and guidance in the above case to proceed further in this regard.

What if we have a small comparison table of most popular aircraft size and comfort level? Just to give a general idea of what all that Boeing 767/737/ Airbus A318 etc mean and look like? Where should we stick it, if at all--here or to the Fundamentals of Flying? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 05:49, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure that's very meaningful. Just recently, I flew a Turkish Airways B737-500 from Istanbul to Dublin and another B737-500 back. The plane to DUB had great seat pitch and modern in-flight entertainment; on the plane back, I was chewing on my knees and watching static. (WT-en) Jpatokal 13:42, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

However, basic things remain generally the same between airlines/flights: number of seats in a row; typical capacity (number of passengers), number of floors (if multiple-floor aircrafts ever exists). Even seat pitch can vary in some limits, and in most cases remain the same (at least in default setting as defined on aircraft producers web sites). Of course entertainment and meals vary--but we can start with the characteristics that are more or less the same between airlines/flights. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 04:36, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

So are there any serious objections? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 15:09, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

No, I think it's a great idea (WT-en) Sertmann 17:06, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

I found really interesting tips in this one :) Thanks to all who put work into this article. (WT-en) Jamboo 16:21, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

I only found out about this concept recently, partly thanks to wikivoyage! While I appreciate airlines probably have their own policies, is it generally possible to go on standby even if you already checked in online for your booked flight? Or once you've checked in online, are you stuck with your booked flight? --(WT-en) Zorn 19:13, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

As you suggest, it comes down to airline policy and fare basis. If you are permitted to go standby on an earlier flight, the fact that you have checked in online for a later flight will make no difference. The airline can and will undo that provided you have no checked baggage. --(WT-en) inas 02:58, 7 July 2009 (EDT)

Cheers Inas, second question of mine you've answered in 24h! I may edit the article accordingly, but I will sleep on it, perhaps it's only me the question would have occurred to. Obviously if you think it's worthwhile you can probably make a better edit than me, but I see you haven't so maybe you don't think it's a good idea... --(WT-en) Zorn 20:41, 7 July 2009 (EDT)

I suspect this is a ridiculously naive question, but I just don't take anything for granted with airlines... I'm thinking about buying a ticket (with Varig, FWIW) and it notes that there is a no-show fee of $50. Does this mean if I don't show up they will charge me an extra $50 on top of me losing what I already paid for the ticket, or is this just saying that if I manage to get a refund or want to alter the flight details they will deduct $50 from its nominal value? I can't see how it's fair for them to charge me extra for not flying (it costs less to have an empty seat on the plane than one with me in it, surely), but as I say I just don't trust any airline. If someone who knows about this could clarify this in the article I'd appreciate it. (I am not buying that ticket any more, it wasn't cheap anyway, but I'd still like to have the article cover this.) --(WT-en) zorn 12:37, 29 December 2009 (EST)

Tend to agree about quality of most content. Wonder if mention and links to third-party consolidators such as Expedia and Kayak comply with requirements for "style".

Have faint hope this topic will ever approach a mature or final condition. The industry and emerging laws/regulations may keep some sections forever in need of update. Regards, (WT-en) Hennejohn 20:40, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

There are two mentions of using luggage delivery services as opposed to checking in baggage, to save stress. Unless people are moving lots of luggage overseas, it surely unusual to pay the high fees charged to airfreight stuff, to avoid the stress of checking in a bag at the airport. So much so, that it seems a bit like a concealed tout for luggage services, rather than a realistic option to simplify the average travel experience. I've never used these services, or known anybody to use them just to ease stress - possibly to carry excess baggage. I'm tempted to remove the references to them here --(WT-en) Inas 23:37, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Very last sentence of section now advises we consider business or first-class tickets if one needs a larger baggage allowance. At least for international flights, believe the economics would be quite bad. (WT-en) Hennejohn 15:48, 15 April 2012 (EDT)

Yes, yes, I know this is a wiki that I can plunge forward and add to, but I'd like to suggest some things that can be added/improved:

• "Planning your trip" should include the following sections (some are covered on separate pages, but deserve a paragraph here): discount airlines, classes of travel (economy, economy plus/premium/comfort/etc, business, & first), tips/tricks when booking multi-destination or round-the-world flights, and airline alliances.

• Also in "Planning your trip", as the page currently stands, the "Reservations & ticketing" section only covers booking the "old school way" through and agent or at the counter while "Finding cheap tickets" mentions online booking. This needs to be completely reworked. Booking online is not necessarily cheaper...companies like Expedia & Travelocity are simply online travel agencies and do not necessarily offer cheaper tickets and often times tickets sold though these online agencies will be in a special fare class. I think its a little disingenuous to put them under ways to find cheap tickets. True, they may offer cheaper tickets when bundled with hotel/car rental or last minute deals, but many airlines do the same. Kayak searches many site, so I guess it's fair to single them out for finding cheap ticket. Additionally there are other ways to book airfare online (via airline and rewards programs—like with credit cards). IMO, discussion of booking online, via a travel agent, and at airport should be merged into a single "Reservations" section, followed by "Finding discount airfare", followed by "Ticketing" (or maybe rename to "At the airport").

• A section on inter-continental flying might be helpful. This would normally go on continent pages, but a primer would be nice since and fall within the scope of this project. Such a section would cover such things as flying NA-Asia (note that most connections are through NYC, Detroit, Chicago, or LA and Tokyo, Shanghai, or Hong Kong), Europe/Africa to Asia/Australia (especially via Middle East carriers Emirates, Qatar, Etihad), South-North America (mainly via Miami, LA, Houston), and more.

• I don't know if I'm the only one, but I have never before come across the word "doff". Is that a Commonwealth English term? If so, it should probably be changed to "take off" or "remove", as appropriate, for Americans and non-native English speakers to better understand.

• Finally, some pictures would be nice to break up this giant block of text.

AHeneen (talk) 09:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Very good ideas. Let's develop them. Thanks, Hennejohn (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Kudos to Nicholasjf21 for organizing this big article into usable/accessible subordinate pages. Seems to be considerably more readable. Now on to improving content, e.g., per AHeneen. Hennejohn (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to see a box section mentioning the effects of flight on climate change, and some options for more low carbon forms of transport. I remember seeing a similar box section in both Lonely Planet and Rough Guide travel guides (though that was in the '90s). How do others feel about this? --Keithonearth (talk) 07:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Maybe a small amount of text. But this is a travel guide not an encyclopaedia. Maybe in the box a link to the Wikipedia page on the subject. Also should only be done if we are fair and add similar text to Driving, Rail, Cruise ships and any activity that is an energy consumer.Maybe what is needed is a Travel Topic on green travel and holidays.--Traveler100 (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think you're looking for the Responsible travel article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'd support this, provided that it carefully avoids advocating one side of the arguement (as explicitly stated at this policy page), and focuses only on informing the traveller. Using an infobox might make sense. Vidimian (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad to hear that there is general support for this. I was thinking a small box, with info relevant to the traveler who wants to keep her/his carbon footprint down.

I think including boxes on every travel type that uses energy (that is, after all, every type of travel) might be a bit too broad a scope, and not what I'm looking to do. If other folks see fit to do so they are welcome. It is my understanding that jet aircraft that fly in the stratosphere are believed to have a multiplying effect on the climate changing potential of the pollutants -- that is to say 1kg of CO2 released in the stratosphere has more of a climate effect than 1kg of CO2 released at ground level. As such air travel is the most carbon intensive form of travel.

Linking to Wikipedia seems like a good idea, I'm reading this now, trying to figure out how to condense it into a sentence or two. --Keithonearth (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Adding an infobox about ways to reduce/offset carbon emissions is fine. It shouldn't be too encyclopedic (but obviously a sentence or two about the science behind it is needed to convey the message) and I'd suggest it include a couple links (maybe a short list) to well-known carbon offset schemes and a link to the Responsible travel page, where the bulk of content concerning carbon emissions should go. With regards to "be fair", I don't see any need to present more than one side (for and against climate change?) given the topic...just as long as it's not an extremely charged rant (eg. demeaning travelers for traveling and their contributions to climate change...instead, just briefly mention the impact and then write a couple sentences on ways to reduce/offset this impact). As mentioned, this is a topic most travel guides discuss.

If you'd like to write more about this topic, feel free to expand the content on Responsible travel. That page was recently created and there's some carbon emission content on the Ecotourism page that needs to be moved...the scope of ecotourism should focus more on eco-friendly hotels where the main attraction is the surrounding nature/environment, while the scope of responsible travel should be sustainable/responsible social, economic, & environmental impact while traveling. AHeneen (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

On two "sides" of the arguement, I was thinking of something along the lines of "environmentalists vs polluting businesses", and linked the policy page on being fair just to make sure that "...We don't have any agenda on Wikivoyage. We are not advocating any ... environmental practice ...". Vidimian (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok, it's up. I hope that it works for everyone, but if not it's a starting point. I did put in a nod to the benifits of air travel, Vidimian. --Keithonearth (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Not sure if I've misrepresented what I was meaning to convey somewhere, but my intention wasn't really to have the box to pamper the air travel industry, but only to avoid typical environmentalist rants (the content of most of which I'm in agreement with, by the way) that might scare uninterested readers away. The text reads very balanced and okay to me in its current form, anyway. Vidimian (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

The "typical environmentalist rant" is exactly what I don't want to see either. I've expanded the infobox a bit, with a few relevant links. The only issue is that its placement and size near the top look odd/out of place. Should it be turned into a section rather than an infobox? AHeneen (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, I'm usually a fan of shorter, snappier infoboxes; the now-expanded version is a bit too long to my liking. I couldn't really see a relevant section to put the text in in the current version of the article, so maybe it should go in a section on its own in the bottom of the article? Vidimian (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

I also am a fan of shorter snappier infoboxes, as had also been suggested by Traveler100 above, and in fact I had thought that was what AHeneen had in mind too. Perhaps he/she and I have different ideas on what "short" means. At this point though it's too long for me and I think that we should focus on reducing the length of the infobox -- Let's aim for 1/3 of it's present length. Much of the content in the box would be better off on the responsible travel page. I'd like to move the list airlines that offer carbon offset schemes. Also move all the details of carbon offsets scheme to the responsible travel page. I'd be happy to revert it to as I originally had it (of course), but I want to take other peoples' opinions into account. --Keithonearth (talk) 03:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK, I've put some work into shortening the infobox. Thanks to AHeneen for his or her contribution, and especially for copying it to the Responsible travel page. If there's more ideas on how to make the infobox concise or things that could extend the box lets talk about them here before editing the article. --Keithonearth (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Pardonnez-moi, but why does an article so fundamental and advisory in its nature begin with a shameless promotion for travel agents. I understand that there might be some discussion on the way tickets might be arranged and why agents are sometimes employed to procure tickets, but to begin therewith and portray what is to be explained by the article as "overly complex" and suggest to the reader it is better dealt with by employing a paid intermediary rather than understanding and acquiring knowledge themselves is deeply inappropriate IMHO.

There are many times when travel agents might be extremely helpful or even indispensable and it would be good to discuss this, though perhaps better in the article devoted to travel agents themselves. But for most first-time air travellers who may find this article handy procuring an airline ticket at this day and age should be a simple process, especially when aided by information found therein. --PrinceGloria (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Agree, travel agents shouldn't be "promoted", but they do have a valuable role for many travelers. Have re-written and replaced discussion in sub-section of the "Planning" section...entitled "Getting help". Hope this addresses above concern. Hennejohn (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

As the Airport Expedition (quick plug) gets under way, I was taking a quick look at our coverage of air travel in general and it seems to be a bit eclectic. We maintain 5 airline articles (American Airlines, US Airways, Philippine Airlines, Singapore Airlines and United Airlines) which aren't (as far as I can tell) sanctioned by policy we have on here and (from what I gather), we've deleted several already. Oughtn't we decide either to welcome airlines as a genre and extend our coverage using the existing and seemingly fairly resilient template already in use, or decide that they're not for us and merge/delete them.

We also seem to have a lot of overlap with some of our travel topics. For example: Tips for flying and Fundamentals of flying which share the same opening sentence at present. I've stuck a 'merge' tag on the former, but it's not the only the article that could exist happily within 'Fundamentals'. I think we should either merge a lot of articles into 'Fundamentals' or 'districtify' (so to speak) that article, so it's not quite so massive.

Any thoughts on either point? --Nick (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

On the first point, I have never thought it a good idea for us to have airline articles, as they are articles about specific companies and transport systems, both of which we have specific policies against. The key airport sections are marginally useful, but the fleet information with specific airplane model info is a little encyclopedic for most travellers I think (besides a couple of Boeing models, it's mostly only airplane afficionados who would know anything about the others), and the frequent flyer program information strikes me a being slightly touty and a lot difficult to ensure we keep it updated. That kind of information is always bound to be given in more definitive and updated form on the company's website anyway. Route information is similarly subject to change at anytime, which is why we generally also do not give detailed bus/train/ferry schedules. If we make a blanket exception to the no-articles-for-companies rule here, I also think this would represent a step toward allowing articles for hotel chains, bus companies, etc., as there is analogous information for all such companies.

On the second point, yes I think those two should definitely be merged and if necessary "districtified" as you said. Texugo (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Texugo on both points. Pashley (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

If I remember correctly (and I may very well be wrong), at least one of the articles Nick mentioned survived a VfD nomination in the past. For the life of me, I cannot understand why; as Texugo said, they are very clearly against our policy. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Actually Qantas has its own article too. I can't really understand the purpose of separate articles about airlines either. Numerical information relevant to travelers such as baggage limits and perhaps seat pitch could be put in a list. Encyclopaedic details about the fleet, lounges, destination lists etc. are interesting indeed, but everything is already on WikiPedia. Frequent flyer info and phone numbers and such - um... seriously? I mean, of course Wikivoyage should cover all possible aspects of travel, but I think it's sufficient to give the reader names of airlines flying to X and maybe a link to their homepage where they can check prices and schedules, book etc. This isn't a travel agency or the yellow pages. Concerning the second part. I think the articles should be merged, and so should At the airport. Some intelligent districtification could be useful because the current fundamentals of flying is fairly unwieldy already. Ypsilon (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

See Wikivoyage talk:What is an article?#Airlines, Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/January 2013#US Airways, United Airlines, & Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/January 2013#American Airlines. AHeneen (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

What the results for the Vfd discussions show is that there is no consistent policy on articles about airlines, and for some reason, some of them get kept but articles about cruise lines are automatically deleted. As I said in my comment about the deletion of Carnival Cruise Line:

"I don't get it. Why are we deleting an article about a cruise line and some articles about airlines and keeping other articles about airlines? Where should we be discussing the reasoning behind these decisions?" Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

(indent)In reading the discussions, it seems there are two overriding reasons for the willy-nilly keep/delete 'policy' we have regarding cruises and airlines.

• The first is whether or not someone has spent a lot of time writing it. It's an argument often brought up even when an article is clearly against policy. Basically, deleting such articles could anger/upset the user (maybe enough to make them leave) and there is a feeling of guilt associated with deleting someone's hard work. While this shouldn't be a valid reason to keep an article, we're all human and have feelings (except the bots...)
• The second was only mentioned once, but I know it's something on many people's minds which is deleting high-content articles here means that another site probably still has the content, so we automatically forfeit that user traffic. I'd like for this to not be a valid concern however, I'm not sure we've reached a place for it to be dismissed yet. We still don't appear on most Google searches.

There are, of course, a lot of other reasons given in the discussions. With the airlines, it seems to be that some users want information to be consolidated and convenient, which may or may not be the case on the official website. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not arguing that all articles about airlines and cruise lines should be deleted; I just think we need to have a coherent policy that we can follow. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

On the topic of airlines. What I think is useful to travelers is which airports are their hubs, useful to know when planning for alternative connections; and which frequent flyer program alliances they are part of, useful for consolidating points. Both of these facts are covered at Airline alliances. As for plane details, although I look up which plane type for a specific flight so I can decide on what seat to book, I think fleet data is something for Wikipedia. Lounge information should be on airport pages, or airport sections of the city article. The details on the frequent flyer points collection and redeeming is interesting and often not well summarised on the official site. There are however often unofficial sites for these programs. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

As for the airlines I do agree that they're not particularly useful at present, so we should do away with them. Would some sort of 'Not yet bin' be useful for when people have plainly spent a long length of time on an article that doesn't yet fit with our remit? That way, they're moved out of the mainspace, but could be re-inserted into other articles or as a standalone piece later on. --Nick (talk) 11:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I separated this paragraph from one below that seemed to change the topic of the discussion (and thus I created a new subhead). I hope you don't mind, Nick. I wonder if merging airline articles into broader travel topics (such as Airlines in the United States or some such) would alleviate concerns. I agree that articles on individual airlines seems a bit much. LtPowers (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't mind at all - I think that makes good sense! Merging airlines together sounds like a good idea too as we have a lot of information on airlines and it would be a shame to delete all of it. --Nick (talk) 08:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've had a look at our flying travel topics and redistributed the information in Flying, Fundamentals of flying, Tips for flying and At the airport into 5 new articles. User:Nicholasjf21/Flying is a portal into our flight topics, whilst User:Nicholasjf21/Planning_your_flight, User:Nicholasjf21/At_the_airport, User:Nicholasjf21/On_the_plane and User:Nicholasjf21/Arriving_by_plane form a series of articles, providing information on every step of a flight to the traveller. These articles are still very much a work in progress, but I'd be interested to know what you thought of the broad divisions. Thanks! --Nick (talk) 11:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes this is a much better method of organising the articles. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Interesting that Fundamentals of flying will represent the first time in Wikitravel/Wikivoyage history that a former Featured Article ended up as a redirect. Where will we put the FTT icon, I wonder? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I suppose either on the User:Nicholasjf21/Flying page, or perhaps remove it altogether and let this new arrangement earn its own plaudits? The thing is, Fundamentals of flying is an excellent article, I just think that the rest of our air travel coverage needs tweaking and rearranging. --Nick (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I say remove it, and leave it unlinked in the FTT archive. A footnote may be necessary to explain. LtPowers (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think you're right there - some sort of footnote saying where relevant info could now be found would be appropriate I think. I've had a little play with all the above articles now - are they looking any better? --Nick (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please feel free to have a play yourselves too if you don't agree with any of the moves I've made. It's still a little sloppy in places... --Nick (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

As no one has objected, am I ok to implement this now? --Nick (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

The deed is done. You can now peruse the newly divided articles from Flying onwards. I have made Fundamentals and Tips redirects, however, for ease of comparison I've copied versions to my name-space so you don't have to go rooting through the revision history:

• Fundamentals of flying
• Tips for flying

All comments, suggestions and feedback would be very welcome. If anyone is distraught at this change, reverting my alterations should be very easy. --Nick (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Is everyone happy with the changes I've made? If so, is it worth starting work on Airlines in the US, as suggested above? --Nick (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I love it! Very intuitive layout, and it's nice to have all the air travel articles in one place. I say plunge forward on that Airlines in the United States article! PerryPlanet (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much! :) I'll get going with the Airlines in the United States article now! --Nick (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

As this overall article was broken into useful sections, we apparently lost the tables. Can someone find a way to generate a table near the front of each major section? Hennejohn (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

The TOCs have been replaced page banners as per Wikivoyage:Banner Expedition. You can use the section titles along the bottom of the banner as you would a TOC, but in the expedition's discussion, there is talk of section-level TOCs. :) --Nick ^talk 19:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

So now, thanks to Nicholas and other hard-working editors, we have a very nicely structured four-step guide to airline travel. But there are many other flying topics we may look into reassessing. Below are my thoughts, I would be thrilled if you chipped in and, eventually, we decide on a couse of action and get work underway. This could be Wikivoyage's forte, as there aren't really many good sites when you can find a beginner's guide to airline travel structured nicely and covering all bases.

My thoughts:

• Airlines of... articles - I really do not think it makes any sense to try to double more developed and well-maintained sites that gather those kind of data. Even Wikipedia does a fairly good job here, why duplicate the work of people there rather than simply direct people to WP if they want to research a particular airline?
• Low-cost airlines and continental derivatives - I believe we only need one article, but it'd better be a good one. I do not think we need to list individual low-cost airlines as per the above, and their business model does not really vary from continent to continent (the only things that do, apparently, are levels of pilot training, general safety and cabin crew discrimination). An article explaining the caveats of flying low-cost vs. major airline could be beneficial (even if could become outdated quite fast, as legacy carriers increasingly converge to new business models and there are more and more "hybrids" like Air Baltic or Norwegian)
• List of airline baggage limits - I don't think we will really be going to maintain it in a reasonably reliable condition, so I would just do away with it, as it gets outdated pretty quickly, and is already covering only a fraction of the world's airlines
• Metropolitan area airport codes - great article, very useful, and relatively easy to update (it is not that often that a new airport is opened or an old one closed
• Airline consolidators - not really sure if this business exists anymore, and how to take advantage of it. Is this something akin to booking websites such as esky.pl, which allow me to purchase one leg with one airline and another with a different airline that don't normally code-share or interline, but at the price of a two-way tickets on a connection where one-way journeys are normally heavily penalized?
  It is also full of "it might rain but on the other hand it may not" statements and quite vague, and I guess requires a major update and rewrite.
• Airline alliances - this needs major expansion focusing on how one can take advantage of an alliance when planning their air travels. We should carefully make sure not to repeat content from other articles but rather link to them
• Round the world flights - shouldn't it be folded into airline alliances?
• First and business class travel and frequent flyer programmes are fine, if still requiring copyedits for style, spelling, grammar, as well as factual check and update. I guess we should make sure those do not overlap each other and the four basic articles, as well as other in the section.
• Finally, air courier - does this thing exist anymore? If you google the term, our article comes second - a rarity for WV, but sadly generally meaning that the topic is scarcely covered on the interwebz, and my gut feeling tells me it is not because of its secrecy, but because there is nothing to talk about anymore. Perhaps we could move it to Wikipedia as a memento of the times gone by?

Your thoughts? PrinceGloria (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Those all sound like good ideas to me! Perhaps it would be worth leaving a note in the pub so a few more people can come and comment? :) --Nick ^talk 12:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can we declare there being a consensus to implement the above strategy? PrinceGloria (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Anybody? No? DUST? PrinceGloria (talk) 06:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Try posting here: Wikivoyage:Requests_for_comment. If nothing comes up within a few days, then I think you can probably plunge forward without fear. :) --Nick ^talk 08:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nobody bothered, so I am plunging in due course. PrinceGloria (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's a fine idea and I really have nothing to say against it, except for the Round the world flights article which in my opinion should either stay as a separate travel topic or if needed be merged with Round the world overland into a "Round the world" article. Ypsilon (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Are you going to consolidate the budget airlines article? I would also question why budget airlines should be separate from 'standard' airlines? they still fly A to B :) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

As you can read above, that was the part of the original suggestion which I believe we all agree on. I just want to point out the slight inappropriateness of the "are you going to" bit in your question, which should read more like "Should we" - you are very welcome to join the effort and plunge ahead with merging whatever content there is in the "local" low-cost airline articles into the main one to create a superb, informative and not overly trivial guide that is actually useful for the tourists and does not state obvious points or repeat other articles. Looking forward to working with you on that! PrinceGloria (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to have come over as inappropriate. My presumption was simply from the observation that you had completely removed the 'Airlines in Asia' article, and therefore were likely to be continuing some large scale reworking of this subject area. I will be more careful next time. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm actually struggling about how to contribute to this area. Although I know a few things about the subject in hand, I don't really want to just create a copy of what can already be found in Wikipedia. I will just observed the Talk page for now and see if an opportunity arises. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

You were not inappropriate in any way, obviously. I am just trying to encourage you to contribute! If you're seeing something like "oh, this is wrong" or "there is some information missing", just plunge forward and add it. Specifically, seeing that we have decided to merge the articles on low-cost airlines into one, you may want to find the bits in the "local" articles that are useful and put them into the "main" article on Low-cost airlines. Said article may also use copyediting, trimming (the parts which we cover in other articles or that are too verbose or obvious) and updating.

Do note that this site is meant to be separate from Wikipedia - while we might decide some information does not belong here and is better covered by Wikipedia, we wouldn't have even started if we were thinking "oh, this is already on Wikipedia". So we need to cover the same topics and areas, as long as they are of importance to travellers, and as long as we do it with the traveller (rather than objective, sourced information) in focus. Travellers do need some information on low-cost airlines and they should get it from here, but not ALL of it that Wikipedia has (and Wikipedia won't have much of what we do/will, like any kind of advice or personal opinions or experiences).

And, in the very end, there are no "rights" or "wrongs" here, it's a community-based project. Every edit enriches it, and it is always better to discuss, or even discuss, all the edits you made than all the edits you didn't!

I am still hoping you will contribute and not just stand back! Cheerio, PrinceGloria (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

There is a need for a manual of style for air travel information. Please contribute. /Yvwv (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Suggest the banner at the bottom of the page state something beyond the usual rating for the limits of its content. The page in-fact organizes access to multiple, related articles contributing to comprehensive coverage of flying...each now rated as a "guide" article, with the totality approaching a "star". Hennejohn (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Agreed and changed. Texugo (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Some of the contents of (link removed) >>this article<< might be useful to put somewhere. I didn't know, for example, that the water used to make tea on planes is filthy and should never be drunk, and I'll think twice about having tea on a plane again. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

You don't want to EVER look into the machines used to make your coffee or the hot water for your tea on the ground either then. PrinceGloria (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to say, but that list is obviously not written by an aviation expert. "I have a friend who is a captian..." does not bode well for the veracity of these 'facts'.

I understand the water one is sort of true though. Basically the water tanks are cleaned out with a lot of chemicals periodically, and these invariably get into the drinking water. Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I actually clicked the link any me belief in humanity suffered irreparably. What a load of sloblock, Internet filler of the worst sort. Can we please remove the link not to provide the original page with any extra Google power? PrinceGloria (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Is that a "Little bit of Fry and Laurie" reference PrinceGloria?

Actually, agree. It is unfortunately just link bait. Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I guess it just transpired that both of us spent far too much time watching TV, Andrew :D PrinceGloria (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

"The holding tanks in these sometimes 60 year old planes...". Excuse me? Even in the poorest parts of Africa sixty years old passenger planes are pretty rare. And "the true story behind the oxygen masks" is well explained in the movie Fight Club. ϒpsilon (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad that some of that stuff turns out to be inaccurate, but I'm a little shocked that you removed the link, and I'd like to know whether something is being implied about me in using the phrase "link bait." Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

The article itself could be described as 'link bait'. It is designed to be written very quickly and sent around the internet/facebook/twitter quickly as possible to get as many hits as possible for the site in order to increase advertizing revenue.

No implication was made (at least by me) that you did it for nefarious purposes. I also don't see any point removing the hyperlink from your post. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

ϒpsilon, you obviously forgot the first and second rule of 'Fight Club'. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Oops! :) ϒpsilon (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

This is a slightly mis-titled nomination as I'm actually referring to the four articles that reside within Flying. Their forebear, 'Fundamentals of flying' narrowly missed star status, but now that its content has been split, rewritten and mixed with 'Tips for flying', it is hopefully a far more coherent and easy-to-follow guide, worthy of this accolade. --Nick ^talk 00:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Nick, as you may have noticed we've already too many nominations on this page and yours one not even touched since you nominated it. I suggest you to please nominate an article one by one so that people may find it more convenient to make their opinions. --Saqib (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Slushing this as there has been absolutely no discussion on this for over a year. — Ravikiran (talk) 06:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Aviation Price Index tries to measure differences in costs for different countries. This is tricky; I'm sure their measurements are not complete & wonder to what extent they are up-to-date & accurate. Even so, it seems like interesting info. Pashley (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

So according to several media outlets the US and the still United Kingdom plan to introduce a ban on laptops or any sort of electronic devices bigger than x for all flights originating out of certain countries/airports; apparently most of them in the general Middle East / Turkey / North Africa region. Now we may debate whether this is for security reasons, "security reasons" or a pretty blatant to force an economic and competitive disadvantage on the Gulf Carriers, but which articles should we mention this in and how? Middle East? USA? Air travel in the US? Avoiding travel through the US? business travel? United Kingdom? Where else? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

If it is a long lasting ban, rather than a brief panic, then I think that it should go in the "Get in" sections of the relevant countries. I notice that the UK and US have different lists of countries that you can't carry laptops from. Are the airlines going to stop insisting that you don't check inyour laptop in case the battery catches fire (on a recent flight I was told at check-in that even my torch has to be carried on)? AlasdairW (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

By the way this sounded it is intended to be a permanent thing. And yes the point you are making has been made by others. I find it weird that suddenly a laptop battery has become "safe" in the cargo hold when it hasn't been for years... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

Hi all,

In the last days and weeks, there have been systematic edits regarding airports in "Get in" sections, converting marker templates used in text paragraphs to listings. A few examples are: Malmö, Edinburgh, Hamburg. I contacted the person who made these edits and he/she pointed to the following policy that he/she is following: Wikivoyage:Airport Expedition#Small and medium sized airports.

I think this policy/these changes are not ideal, since they randomly separate text about the airport into two parts - the text that is part of the listing, and the text that is not. Listings so far were self-contained, which means all the information regarding the listed item were mentioned in that listing. In my view, using the marker template (how it was done until now) makes more sense (its documentation states that it is intended to be used in text paragraphs) and also looks more appealing. However, if people insist on the above policy, then a clear definition of what exactly belongs into the "content" parameter of an airport listing should be agreed on and added to the above page. I currently don't see any advantages in making these changes, but maybe someone has some good arguments in favour. Thanks for your input. Xsobev (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion, policy shouldn't make a blanket preference of one over the other. Like most things on this site, the question of what works best for each individual article is what should take ultimate precedence. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

The word policy gives the impression that it is written in stone, if you think a page can be written better then change the text. For information, what I am trying to do is highlight the key text and city article for small and mid-sized airports that do not (and probalby will never) have their own page. On the city page for that airport I have made it a listing, in some case added more information in other hoping others will expand. On other pages that reference the airport I am keeping as simple text or a marker with the {{IATA}} template so that it links to the main article section on the airport. --Traveler100 (talk) 04:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi all, thanks for your replies. I think it is important to have a set of clearly defined guidelines (maybe "policy" was the wrong word to choose) that people can follow, when they edit a part of Wikivoyage. Traveler100, you mentioned consistency as one reason for your edits in our discussion earlier, which I agree is important for the traveler, and generally agreed guidelines help improving consistency. (I don't say that these guidelines cannot be ignored if there is a valid reason for it.) Also, I didn't just want to go ahead and change the text in Wikivoyage:Airport Expedition#Small and medium sized airports without having a discussion about it. I don't want to make a big deal out of it, but I want to know what the best practices are to edit parts of Wikivoyage -- it only creates extra work if I enter information in a specific format, and someone else has to go and change it to something else. Xsobev (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think there should be listings, but we should not overly separate and spread out the information. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I see a general tendency towards using the listing template. Most of the parameters in the listing are obvious, but what should the "content" parameter contain?:

• nothing (always leave it empty and have all the content about the airport immediately following the airport listing)
• everything (airlines flying to the airport, facilities at the airport such as Wi-Fi, ground transportation to the city center, historic information, ...)
• parts of the text describing the airport (but what exactly?)

Also, what should go into the "directions" parameter? Putting ground transportation in there is clearly not a good idea, since it usually is quite a lot of information. Adding the location of the airport (north-east) and distance to the city center would be an option.

Should a bullet point be used or not? (I would say not, since it integrates more nicely with the rest of the text if content about the airport follows outside of the listing).

On a related note: It would be great if the IATA code would also be shown (in addition to the full name) on the dynamic maps, when clicking on the airport listing. Xsobev (talk) 12:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

The 10 best airlines to travel in economy. Their list is different from mine; they include several I have not tried & omit some I like. I agree that Singapore & Cathay Pacific belong here, and none of the main American carriers. Pashley (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

Should we have an article with all the common flight right websites and their costs and services? I would appreciate an overwiew. Maybe we can add the rating of trustpilot?

Cheers Ceever (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Please could you explain. Do you mean websites about your consumer rights when flying as an airline passenger? websites giving details of where you have a right to fly your aircraft, drone or hang-glider?, or is it flight booking and comparison websites? AlasdairW (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the confusion. I meant website where you can reclaim money if your flight was delayed and cancelled. Many charge a lot of money but there are cheap alternatives. I thought it would be a good idea to give travellers an overview of all the big sights. Nevertheless, in addition it might also be a good point listing the specific links of airlines where you can make a claim. Many have such forms in place, like Eurowings: https://www.eurowings.com/de/4u/online-service-ausgleichsanspruch.html

Cheers Ceever (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

IMO, sure. I don't know whether this merits an entire article or not, though. About how long an article do you think it would be if this topic were covered by itself? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

It is already partially covered at At the airport#Delays / cancellations, so I think the best course of action would be to expand that section (with maybe a new section on the page if it's big enough) and put a redirect there from Flight rights. MSG17 (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

At least some of what's in the following "Overbooking" section might be relevant, too. Bumped passengers have few rights in the U.S., but I guess it's different in Europe? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sure, it makes sense to add it to these existing sites. Actually, there is already some stuff there for Europe. I will try to put some work into it.

Indeed, Europe has quite strict rules for delays and such. Unfortunately, there is no immediate compensation of the price and fees if your flight does not go, but this also falls under the compensation scheme. Which is kind of weird.

Cheers Ceever (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Bloomberg: Even before Covid-19, flying was often a miserable affair. It’s about to get much worse — whether you’re in economy or first. Pashley (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

The concept of interlining is referred to in many articles, but I cannot find the term explained anywhere. It should probably go into Planning your flight or Flight baggage. Could somebody do that? –LPfi (talk) 05:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Some countries allow "sterile transit", e.g. provided your baggage has been checked through, you can change planes at Seoul airport without going through Korean customs or immigration. At least in Korea, this does not work if you have two separate tickets & need to go pick up your baggage and check it in for the second flight.

There are also some special cases, e.g. landing in Hong Kong or Macau & taking a ferry to the other or a bus to the Chinese border. I'm not sure which combinations are allowed.

Some countries, e.g. the US, completely disallow this.

This is mentioned at Avoiding_travel_through_the_United_States#Understand & Visa#Classes_of_visas, but should it be discussed somewhere in the group of flying articles? Pashley (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Indeed it should be discussed in this group. Planning your flight seems to be a natural place. –LPfi (talk) 07:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

In addition, it could also be mentioned in Border_crossing#Airport_transit. --Ypsilon (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

Are flying across the Atlantic Ocean and flying across the Pacific Ocean valid travel topics? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I guess, but there isn't a lot to say about the Pacific. Atlantic definitely does have a lot to be mentioned, though, especially NA–Europe flights. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

What would these articles cover? Continent articles should already have a "Get in" section with basic information about flying there. For less-served continents we have a couple of dedicated articles (Flying to Africa, Flying to South America), though I'm not sure they provide much value beyond the information in the corresponding continent and country articles. What kind of information would go in the proposed articles, and what kind of travellers would they be useful for? —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

What about a more generic article about flight paths/routes? I was just reading about polar routes (and associated operating considerations (e.g. New York to Manila) and that was super interesting. It had never occurred to me a flight from New York could be almost the same duration as from San Francisco. Jdlrobson (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply