Talk:MyTravel Airways

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Passengers carried by MyTravel UK 2001-2005 2 A330-200 and B767-300 3 MyTravel Airways 4 article rewrite 5 Swanwick?? 6 Recline 7 Firsts & Destinations

[edit] Passengers carried by MyTravel UK 2001-2005

The above is a relevant and interesting subject for inclusion in a Wikipedia article on any airline, including MyTravel. Other Wikipedia articles on airlines, eg, easyJet, give passenger numbers over a period of years. This helps to give a 'rounded' coverage of the historical fortunes of the relevant airline operator.

However, contributions on MyTravel UK's passenger numbers have been persistently, and unreasonably, deleted from this article.

The now restored passenger statistics for MyTravel UK have been taken directly from the website of THE relevant source : the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority, and reproduce the figures submitted by MyTravel UK on a monthly and annually basis to the UK CAA for public circulation.

Examination of the contributions and deletions made by the persistent 'deleter' show that over 90% relate to MyTravel's affairs. This is an unusual statistic. Wikipedia contributors and readers may wish to consider the motivation and rationale behind the 'deletion campaign' - is this contributor adhering to the requirement not to 'push' an article on, eg, MyTravel, to an unbalanced presentational situation?

Ringwayobserver 20:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Ringwayobserver 31.01.07

[edit] A330-200 and B767-300

The B767-300 does not offer all passengers seat back or hand held televisions, therefore i have changed this to make sure no confusion can arise.

To avoid confusion a email to MyTravel has been sent. I will confirm whether or not the B767-300 has Hand Held or Seat Back Tv's for all passengers in due course.

I would think this level of detail on televisions can be removed as un-encyclopedic and perhaps even considered as advertising - I would suggest it is deleted. MilborneOne 22:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MyTravel Airways

This article was very confusing, parts of it refereed to just the UK Airline and other parts just to the Scandanavian Airline. The article should be either UK or Scandanavian to avoid confusion. My Travel Airways A/S should have another entry seperate to the My Travel Airways UK, as both are operated very seperatly and without many ties.

Must support the view that describing two different airlines in the same article is very confusing, as they each have a legal identity of their own (although owned by the same holding company), we also lose some of the history and developoment of each airline. MilborneOne 20:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] article rewrite

I've rewritten the article to make it flow sensibly and logically and combine the data about MyTravelLite as well. I've also removed the detail on the old aircraft fleet, hope this doesn't upset anyone. There's no real precedent for keeping historic fleet info in an article like this and there was no real information about why it had dropped so dramatically. If there is a great cause for keeping it then maybe write it all up into a separate section but as it read it just felt a bit out of place especailly without an explanation. I've listed the destination countries (primarily) which are on their website and I've linked there. I figured this was easiest as they change relatively frequently and the countries gives a decent flavour of the airline's target market. Iancaddy 20:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swanwick??

Hey all, shouldn't this be shanwick rather than Swanwick??. Thanks DannyM 18:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Swanwick is the new ATC Centre in Hampshire MilborneOne 20:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recline

Annoyed by the statement from User:80.47.181.86 Edit Reverted. No Reason For Edit. Factual Information Was Removed. DO NOT REMOVE IN FUTURE. about parts of the recline paragraph. Which should have been discussed here first - I propose that we should remove the whole recline paragraph as being non notable and and probably falls under the wikipedia is not advertising category WP:NOT#SOAP. MilborneOne 20:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I too was sad at the unacceptable edit summary, particularly from someone who is anonymous. I've solved the problem of the strange final sentence (the one that said "every seatback has a magazine") by deleting it and adding essentially the same info to the first line as "quarterly magazine for passengers". I also cut the views of the magazine cover down from a pointless 3 to just 1. I think the para is now acceptable and doesn't sound like an obvious advert for the magazine's publishers (who I suspect wrote it!) - Adrian Pingstone 22:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above. The edit summaries are totally unacceptable. That aside, the Recline section barely meets WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:NOT#IINFO as it is, so i've reverted 80.47.181.86's recent edit. The summary which User:Arpingstone describes above is more than adequate. I'm not sure that there should be a link to the current issue, either per WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided number 5. johnwalton ^(talk) 14:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There was no reference to advertising in that paragraph, it merely stated the average generic content; it didn’t even say who prints Recline! Wikipedia states Magazine Covers can be used in articles about a magazine so what is the problem with showing 3 different covers? They show how the layout has changed in the past few years. See for instance, the article referring to 'FHM' Magazine, there are 3 magazine covers featured on that page! As for links to the current issue, if providing a link to support info is an issue on Wikipedia, then you would have to edit every page on Wikipedia to remove links to company sites! The paragraph on Recline has been undisturbed on Wikipedia for several months, so why are you now suddenly concerned by it? In addition to all the above, your refined version of the Recline magazine paragraph reflects poor grammar - three 'ands' in one sentence?

I see no problem with a link to the arline's magazine. It would be no more of an advert than the article is an advert for the airline. Also it's a free magazine so I can't see any gains to the publisher from the link. So, I agree, leave the link.

The simple fact is that 3 mag covers is ridiculous on an article about an airline, it's not an article about My Travel magazine!! And having 3 mag covers in another article is totally irrelevant. FHM is a magazine!! so you'd surely expect to see covers. Your argument is very poor.

You are allowed to correct those 3 "ands", there's no need to tell us, just do it.

Finally I am not suddenly concerned by it, I happen to be editing other areas of WP at the moment so have not been looking at airline articles until yesterday - Adrian Pingstone 18:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to revert the paragraph back to its original form as I don't feel you have provided a compelling argument/reason as to why it was edited. Re: FHM page, a magazine is a magazine, regardless of size. Readers of the page are not subsequently going to be thinking it's 'ridiculous' that there a three covers shown, they will more they likely find it interesting to see how the magazine's image has changed over a period of time IMO.

FHM is an article about A MAGAZINE. MyTravel Airways is a an article about AN AIRLINE. That's the difference. One day when you've read thousands of articles and been editing a long time (in my case, since January 2003), you'll understand. So your efforts to get three magazine pics will be constantly reverted until you end up with a ban. - Adrian Pingstone 23:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Recline is an article about the MAGAZINE of MyTravel Airways! The only difference being it is a smaller publication and the page isn't dedicated to it. As in my previous reply, you STILL haven’t provided a compelling reason for me not to change the page back to its prior reading. Three cover pictures or not.

OK, I give up arguing with you. Only long experience of editing would make you understand. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 22:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Dont give up - Wikipedia is driven by consensus - at least Adrian Pingstone, Johnwalton and I agree that the article should remain as edited. I note all the comments suggesting reversion are unsigned so we can only presume that is only one vote for reversion. So you cant really change it back unless you get agreement. If anybody thinks that 'Recline' is that notable then they should create an article of its own then link from this page.MilborneOne 00:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Firsts & Destinations

How can you decide what firsts are 'too trivial'? On the in-flight meal bullet point, please be aware it is not 'too trivial' seeing as every single UK charter airline has followed suit and BA also offer a similar service on short haul flights! Sanford Airport - again every single UK Charter followed suit so how on earth can it be trivial?

Who has removed the world wide tour destinations? They are extremely relevant and should be back on under 'Worldwide', as they are after all... destinations!

The writer of the above should note that an unsigned, anonymous, undated, entry carries very little weight on WP - Adrian Pingstone 15:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)