A reference such as:

 "Visa Information". IATA. Retrieved 27 June 2014.

... is practically useless. If and when the link goes dead, the reader who tries to verify this will stumble upon really simple issues: so the publisher was IATA, but what is "Visa Information" - a single web page about all visa information, a web page about some specific visa information, ...? When was the information originally published? Can it be found in some old IATA publication as opposed to a web site? Etc etc. That's why a mass change from truly bare links to this format - while clearly well-intentioned - is still essentially useless as a solution to the bare link problem.   
, I replied to you on the article talk page. Useless or not, it's NOT a bare link per WP:BAREURLS with which you keep tagging the article. But as I've said if tagging the article with a wrong tag gives you joy then I won't interfere, be joyous my friend. I've invested a lot of time into that article, and it would be nice if you've found something you don't like to actually try and fix it instead of adding those maintenance templates, but I guess we are not all here on the same mission. Some are here apparently just to stubbornly diminish work of others. Even if proven wrong.