# Talk:Nashville International Airport

Started this with VenFlyer98 on their talk page, moving here for wider discussion on the Red Way/JSX inclusion on the destination lists at BNA. Even though they sell individual seats and appear to be operated on a schedule, JSX and Red Way are still public charter airlines legally speaking (from JSX: "Flights are public charters sold by JetSuiteX, Inc...." and Red Way: "Flights are public charters sold by Red Way acting as a Sales Agent on behalf of GlobalX Air Tours, LLC..."). I'm a little less concerned about Red Way, as they appear to at least use the public terminal, however JSX appears to use FBOs instead of the public terminal. 
I propose we keep Red Way and label them as Charter in the table, which is an acceptable thing to do per the WP:Airports style guide. As for JSX, since they operate out of the FBO and not the terminal, I think it's worth discussing whether or not they belong in the table at all.nf utvol (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, apologies for reverting your edit, didn't see the talk page initially.
However, you completely removed them and even if we classify them as charters they shouldn't be removed. Note 10 under the Airlines and Destinations section WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT say the only charters that aren't included are irregular, ad-hoc, or private ones, which JSX and Red Way obviously aren't since anyone can book a ticket on them and they have set schedules. So at a minimum, they'll be included in destination tables.
Now, there are plenty of destination tables on Wikipedia airport pages that list charter flights, however, most of these are as defined by Air charter: usually routes that aren't easily available that you cannot buy an individual seat on. I also want to point out it shouldn't really matter that JSX uses private FBOs as terminals since the rest of their operations are pretty similar to your standard airline. You buy individual seats, they have a set route network, and they have set schedules. Also, not sure if you are aware since you only made the edit to BNA's page but JSX is listed in the destination tables on the airport pages for all destinations they fly to. I think overall, while they are legally defined as a charter airline, it should be left alone as they sell individual seats and essentially run as a regular airline (again route network, schedules, etc) but that's just my 2 cents. (VenFlyer98 (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC))
No worries on the revert! I should have engaged in discussion first, that's 100% on me. And yes, you're right, they're both on the destination charts for the other airports they fly to as well. In this case, they're both considered "charter by the seat" carriers, and as such fly only limited flights between their city pairs and only offer direct service without connection. There's a good guide to charter by the seat operations here, from the Air charter sources.  Considering this legal and functional status, I think that they both should be labelled as charter or seasonal charter not only on BNA, but on all the destination lists in which they appear. Thoughts? nf utvol (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Hey @Nf utvol:, reopening this discussion since you re-added the charter tags again and we didn’t really come to a consensus.
As you said, it should be all or nothing. If you’re going to add the tags to BNA’s page, they should be added to all airport pages that Red Way/JSX/Contour fly to, or BNA shouldn't have the tags at all.
Despite the part 135 charter status, I’m in the camp that they shouldn’t have the tags, this keeps all the pages even. Additionally, most charter routes listed on airport pages are routes that aren’t bookable through the airline directly or are routes that are charters renting the entire plane. Since these 135 airlines pretty much operate as standard airlines, despite the charter by seat format, I think they should be left alone. Especially since regular readers may be confused and think they are charter by plane routes rather than by seat, but again that’s my thoughts. Reverting for now until we can get a consensus and we can get some thoughts going.
Thanks! (VenFlyer98 (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC))
Hey @VenFlyer98: instead of getting into an edit war over a relatively minor issue, I am going to post on the Aviation Wikiproject to get some more opinions here. If consensus still can't be gained through that, I'll put it out as an RfC. Would appreciate it if you could post your thoughts on the talk page there when you get a chance. nf utvol (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Well guess this is open again since I see you went around tagging JSX and Contour as charters on a bunch of pages. In all your edits, you sited this talk page despite there being no consensus, and said the Contour page says they are a charter. While true, remember WP:NOTSOURCE. Additionally, while again the argument can be made for JSX, your previous arguments can’t be applied to Contour. They operate regularly scheduled flights from passenger terminals, mainly serving EAS routes, and offer connections with American Airlines as a regularly scheduled carrier. It would be like calling Cape Air a charter carrier which isn’t true. Again, I don’t see a consensus and it doesn’t look like the discussion at the WikiProject had one either, it was archived and hasn’t had a post in 4-5 months.
(VenFlyer98 (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC))
EDIT:
Actually re-read the archive and realized I completely forgot that I mentioned I was good with the tags. That’s my bad, been a while since the discussion, haha. I still really wouldn’t call it a consensus, since it doesn’t really sound like we really agreed on it, but forgot I said that so feel free to revert my recent reverts. That’s my bad, sorry for the trouble! (Also tagging Johnj1995 so he’s aware of the reverts) VenFlyer98 (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Haha, no worries. I was rather confused when I saw a bunch of notifications that my edits had been reverted. If you want to re-open the WP:AIRPORTS discussion again to see if there are any additional points to be made by anyone that's fine by me, too. nf utvol (talk) 13:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Ah, no worries. We’ll leave it how it is with the tags. Again, sorry for the trouble and have a good New Year’s! VenFlyer98 (talk) 08:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Should BNA have maps showing domestic and international destinations? King airaglub (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Pros:

They are more interactive and accessible than the table.
They can be hidden by clicking the "hide" button.
Cons:

The city/airport names may overlap in some areas with a lot of traffic.
They require a moderate level of maintenance.
King airaglub (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Premature RFC (Summoned by bot): as far as I can tell, I do not believe WP:RFCBEFORE has been satisfied. Specifically, I do not think that any effort has been made to independently reach a consensus on the matter before the RfC was initiated. I believe the RfC should thus be closed, absent such evidence. LoneOmega (talk) 02:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a talk page on this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports. We could not reach a consensus so I started this to reach a broader opinion. King airaglub (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
I reviewed what you link to, and I appreciate that information. Ultimately, I am going to remain at my position that this is premature. Wikipedia:DISCUSSCONSENSUS seems to me to require more effort than occurred on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports page. I don't see any substantive discussion from parties on the merits and policy implications of the two proposed compromises ((1) they are automatically hidden but can be shown or (2) links to flightconnection.com). I would appreciate more discussion on those options before an RfC as I think our general rules on consensus require that good faith discussion. I also think those would be interesting proposals to include in the RfC. It does not look like everyone there is engaging in bad faith or has...questionable edit histories and I believe consensus could yet be reached.
If that conversation does not reach consensus, please come tag on my talk page and I would be happy to respond on the merits to an RfC. Good luck! LoneOmega (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
@LoneOmega, I think it's possible to take RFCBEFORE to an extreme.  If you try to start a discussion, and nobody replies, then an RFC may be perfectly appropriate even though there's been no real discussion.  On a low-traffic page, that might realistically be your only viable option.  Furthermore, in this case, the prior discussion (7 comments from 4 editors – I've seen RFCs with fewer responses) ended with someone recommending an RFC here, so now the OP has one editor telling them to start an RFC and another telling them not to, which is going to be confusing.
BTW, we just ran the numbers on RFCs.  There's been about a 30% decline in the number of RFCs compared to five years ago.  We don't need to carefully police every RFC for fear of overloading the system.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment Is it not the norm to have a list of destinations? Durraz0 (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

It has been a few weeks since the debate over whether BNA should have maps. As far as I can tall, there was no clear consensus as 3 were in favor (including me, Reywas92, and LoneOmega on my talk page) and 2 (Blissfield101 and VenFlyer98) were not. VenFlyer suggested an RFC, which I did, but there were only 2 responses (LoneOmega saying that the RFC was premature but liked the idea and Durraz0, who thought I was referring to the airlines and destinations table). So I shall bring a new proposal to the table. My new idea is to only have one map, the international destinations, and to not bother with a domestic map. Looking back, I do realize that the domestic map does indeed feel cluttered (especially in the Northeast) and just seems unnecessary and hard to maintain. But the international map has far less locations (13 vs 108 with both), sees fewer changes, and is overall more informative. King airaglub (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Just a thought to allow this standard to apply even to airports with a lot of international destinations: what about a simple map that just shaded in countries where there are flights going from BNA? Would probably be less cluttered and folks would probably refer to the tables for more detail anyways? LoneOmega (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
I think the idea of a country-only map would be interesting. However, I do see one problem. Every time a new international flight is added, somebody has to create an entirely new map (maybe on MapChart), upload it, and then make the change, whereas a city-based map only requires that particular airport(s) to be added without replacing the map altogether. This would especially be a problem for major airports like the ones you mentioned. But it is still a concept that could potentially work for a smaller airport like BNA. King airaglub (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate this, I don't have experience with wikipedia mapmaking so pardon the lack of context on the workflows for the respective choices. LoneOmega (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Just popping in here now... but what are the benefits of adding destination maps? A quick look at the destinations shows that they also have destinations in Europe, leading to multiple maps or excessive big maps. And who is going to maintain these maps? The Banner talk 00:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
The whole point of this discussion is that there is only one map for all the international flights. BNA currently only has 13 so there is plenty of room to fit on one map. In addition, I am perfectly fine with maintaining it by myself since the map doesn't change that often King airaglub (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
So one map for national flights and one big map for international flights? The Banner talk 00:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
No. The idea is to skip the hassle of a domestic map and to go all in on the international map. A domestic map would include 95 destinations in 45 states, which is far too cluttered with flights to small airports with barely any traffic. King airaglub (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
When the article has a well sourced (i.e.: independent sources conform WP:RS) list of destinations, those maps add nothing to the article. In my opinion, just clutter and decoration. Fixing the poor sourcing is way more important than the maps.The Banner talk 10:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
I created one of the first route maps for this page years ago, back when there were just a couple dozen destinations and the routes were rather stagnant. I would advise against it now. There are a LOT more destinations to be crammed on there now, and keeping it up to date is a Sisyphean task considering how often the routes change. If someone wants to build a map and put it up, be bold and have at it, but be prepared for it to be removed the moment it no longer reflects what is in the destination table. Just my two cents. nf utvol (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

So I realized recently that Vacation Express still operates flights to Cancun and Punta Cana on Viva and Allegiant respectively. This edit was reverted for having no source, but in my opinion, if a good source cannot be found but the flights are bookable (on vacation express’s website[1]), it should still listed. 
The flights start on May 25 and 24 respectively. I can’t find a news source but I am positive these flights do exist and have existed because I have found FlightAware pages showing both flights from July 2024.[2][3] King airaglub (talk) 13:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Conform WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT all connections must be independently sourced. As organiser of the flights, Vacation Express is not independent. And in my opinion flight trackers are not reliable sources (but that is open for debate). The Banner talk 14:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I also agree that a flight tracker is not a reliable source. I just added it to prove that the flight has existed through 2024. I guess it does not matter anyways because 3 of the 4 flights are run by other airlines. King airaglub (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Okay, you can also promo but I prefer non-independent source. The Banner talk 17:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I rolled back the two COI edits starting here from IP editor 170.76.217.84 (talk · contribs), as the editor claimed to be "the media relations manager for Nashville International Airport" in their edit summary and did not follow the WP:MOS. The edits  placed registered trademark symbols after references to "Nashville International Airport" and "BNA" in the article and would have been reverted regardless of the COI due to the MOS issues. nf utvol (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)