Talk:Mesa Air Group
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
[edit] Ronald R. Fogleman
Is this link to the correct person? It covers nothing about Mesa involvement. Vegaswikian 21:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes the link does go to the right person, he is a retired Air Force general, but probably he was more known for what he did in the military than what he's done after it.Skysailor 13:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] FloridaGulf, Superior, Liberty Express, Air Midwest, WestAir, CCAir, Freedom, and go!
I guess all these should have separate airline pages, but what I think I am going to do is:
- FloridaGulf, Superior, Liberty Express, Mountain West - since these were divisions of Mesa Airlines - they never had their own operating certificate - I am going to create a page redirecting those terms to the Mesa Airlines Page and put their history under the history of Mesa Airlines.
- Air Midwest, WestAir, CCAir - these had history before Mesa Airlines and they were wholly owned subsidiaries - I am going to research the history of the companies before their acquisition and create separate new pages for WestAir and CCAir and update Air Midwest accordingly in the manner I did the Mesa Air Group page
- Freedom - it is also a wholly owned subsidiary - will update once I get around to it
- go! - I'll leave the updating of that page to Hawaiian717. it is a division of Mesa Airlines like FloridaGulf, Superior, etc. so personally I am leaning toward incorporating go! history into the Mesa Airlines page. with go! redirecting to Mesa Airlines - but I will go with what everyone else thinks.
Skysailor 13:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Turnaround
I removed parts of this section since that were very POV and I did not see a simple way to rewrite to fix the problems. I also question how much of the material is in fact encyclopedic. Given the tone of what was removed, it is better to start from scratch to address what was removed rather then try a rewrite. Of course, there is still a question over the material itself be encyclopedic. I can easily see this as a part of a news article or a media report, but question its need here. Vegaswikian 19:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
