Talk:EasyJet/Archive 1

message: Are the routes suspended only for the winter period or are they discontinued for good? I can't find anything clarifying this either here, on their site or anywhere for that matter.
Most routes that are suspended from a base for the winter period will be re started for the summer seasons, only a few routes over the history of easyjet have been dropped totally, such as all flights to ZRH, BTS, BLQ, other such as SPU and RIJ are only operated in the summer as they are not profitable in the winter when the aircrafts can be used on more profitable routes such as ski destinations or increased frequency on such routes, which in turn will be dropped or decreased in the summer.
:ORY-MRS has been stopped at the beginning of summer 2005, I think mostly because of the success of the LGV Méditerranée (Paris Marseille was now only 3 hours since 2001) Slasher-fun (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspended routes 

message: Can someone please submit information about the pricing structure and basics of the economic theory behind it? Market segmentation etc...
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.225.233.29 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 8 March 2006.
*Almost all airlines - especially budget ones - use a complex fares system that basically means that unpopular times to book a particular fare will cost less. Booking a wee small hour morning midweek flight a long time in advance will cost next to nothing, while a peak time fare on a major route booked a couple of weeks beforehand will cost you an arm and a leg. The overall goal of this is to increase the sales at these unpopular seats, and hence make more flights fly full. See Airline#Ticket sales for more detail. Although it's relevant to all airlines, I don't think we'd be able to get enough EasyJet-specific information to make it worth adding much to the article - perhaps a mention that, as a budget airline the make extensive use of it, and a link. --Scott Wilson 01:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pricing structure 

message: easyJet is claimed to be a more business-oriented airline than Ryanair, since it flies to major airports (as opposed to secondary airports) and has recently removed limits on hand luggage weight (within reason).
:Can we have some less subjective phraseology here? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Specially the word 'recently' must be changed, since this is a encyclopedia and not a forum, newsticketMr.K. 00:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. A more appropriate strategy is to state the month and year, if not the full date -- i.e., "As of [date], easyJet removed limits on ... ."Lawikitejana 18:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luggage "within reason?" 

message: Here is a single sentence from the "Controversy" section that takes up just over six full lines on my screen:<BR>
However, this ignores the fact that most of the hub-and-spoke sytems run by traditional full-service network airlines, such as Air France-KLM, British Airways and Lufthansa as well as their US legacy carrier counterparts cause far greater environmental damage because they generally rely on a range of mostly profitable long-haul flights being "fed" by a large number of often only marginally profitable or wholly loss-making short-haul connecting flights via their main hub airports in order to shore up the profitability of the long-haul flights, most of which would not attract sufficient traffic on their own to be profitable.<BR>
There's got to be a way to clean up this sentence, which makes a reasonable point once it's deciphered. (For starters, it needs a comma after 'counterparts.') Lawikitejana 18:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the sentence should be eliminated outright.  Talk about POV without citations!  That one takes the cake.  What yardstick of measure is being offered to prove that there is "far greater environmental damage?"  Prove it, or admit that it is nothing but baseless POV.  EditorASC (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing sorely needed 

message: Much of the content in the RyanAir section makes what are reasonable-sounding arguments, but without citation of sources, it starts sounding as if the author(s)/editor(s) simply "have it in" for RyanAir. Please don't think that my requesting citations indicates a bias the other way -- I know virtually nothing about RyanAir, so I have no reason to favor it. Those of us with a fondness or attachment for certain companies must be especially careful to maintain nPOV in editing their articles. (Being from Dallas, I grew up with something of an affinity for Southwest myself.) Lawikitejana 19:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the neutrality of this section is doubtful. The statement comparing on-time performance / punctuality of easyJet versus Ryanair was particularly misleading, claiming the punctuality of both companies was "similar". In actual fact Ryanair consistenly outperforms easyJet on punctuality from CAA data at UK airports, I have now been amended this point and referenced the actual data. 82.44.26.36
I would suggest to remove the comparisons with Ryanair as they are IMO completely irrelevant in the section. They sound like a personal frustration of a Ryanair traveler. It's an encyclopia, not a discussion forum.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joost van der Maarel (talk • contribs) 10:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Careful of nPOV, please 

message: Do we really need so many images of planes used? Redundancy?  --Bob 19:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Surely a contradiction:
:"When the last of the Airbus A319s has been delivered in 2007 easyJet still expects to be operating all its 30 Boeing 737-700s and to have completely retired its 737-300s."
Then in the next paragraph:
:"easyJet will dispose of its first next-generation Boeing 737-700s later this year (2006)"
Editing required? Or does anyone have more information as to which statement is correct? 
-- 80.44.192.183 13:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fleet

message: Do we really need the Comparisons with Ryanair paragraph it does not promote a NPOV, the Ryanair article does not have a Comparisons with Easyjet paragraph. Ryanair is not the only low-cost competitor. Suggest the para is removed - any comments? MilborneOne 21:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No comments within seven days so i have removed the paragraph. The rivalry is already mentioned in the strategy paragraph.MilborneOne 21:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It is not neccesary. Ryanair is the competence so it should be cited, but it doesn't make sense to compare them on the article. --Karljoos (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ryanair

message: I have changed all the mentions of easyJet into EasyJet- I believe this has fixed the capitalisation issue- if there are no disagreements, the capitalisation notice should be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiddenfromview (talk • contribs) 19:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No disagreements, so I shall remove the capitalisation notice. Hiddenfromview (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalisation

message: Does this page really need seven pretty indistinguishable pictures of easyjet airplanes?? 
Removed some- now only 4 Hiddenfromview (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are possibly right about the images - but with a fleet of only two aircraft types it soon becomes much the same. I would suggest we need images of earlier EasyJet aircraft like the 737-200 and 737-300 instead of lots of A319 images. MilborneOne (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am trying to get hold of an image of a 737-200 with the phone number livery, it should be up soon once I get the licence issues sorted. Hiddenfromview (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Image now up- perhaps the 737's bellow should be moved, or even removed, it's starting to look clutered. Hiddenfromview (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: I have been trying for a while to find references to quote for the section that says a hostile takeover bid would not inherit the easyJet brand royalty-free, but I can't find anything to mention this anywhere. If anyone has a source could you please put it it in.  I'm no expert on the legal system, but surely the royalty-free license is organised with the company, and the license will stay with the company unless Stelios revokes it? Hiddenfromview (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the UK trademark website all the easyjet related trade marks are registered to easyGroup IP Licensing Limited not the airline. MilborneOne (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Easy brand

message: I've done some major editing, adding new information and references and tidying up existing content. Still some work to be done, especially on the fleet and other facts sections. 
Any thoughts appreciated.
Wexcan (talk) 06:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructure & rewrite 

message: The peer review for EasyJet is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[EasyJet]] now open 

message: The company structure of this article and easyJet Switzerland is a bit muddled. The article states that easyJet Airline Company Limited is listed on the LSE with stock code EZJ. The infobox states that the parent company is easyJet plc. Whilst this article is on the airline, we also need to remember that airlines are companies, and that the company structure needs to be accurate. The entity which is listed on the London Stock Exchange is easyJet plc, as per this link. easyJet plc is a holding company, with the purpose of holding shareholdings in a number of companies, which include (from page 87 of their 2007 annual report):
*easyJet Airline Company Limited - 100% owned subsidiary - this is the company which this article is about
*easyJet Switzerland SA - 49% owned - legally regarded as a subsidiary as per the notations in the report.
*easyJet Aircraft Company Limited - 100% owned subsidiary
*easyJet Sterling Limited - 100% owned subsidiary
*easyJet Leasing Limited - 100% owned subsidiary
*easyJet Malta Limited - 100% owned subsidiary
*Aero Invest (Jersey) LP - 100% owned subsidiary
I would suggest that an article for EasyJet plc be started, as its placement in this article is somewhat erroneous and misleading, and non encyclopaedic.
Having a business background, and being knowledgeable on company structures, and also being able to interpret laws relating to business, I will make the necessary changes to this article. Before making changes to those which I make, pleasure ensure that they are discussed here first, as I have no desire to get into a long-drawn out protracted dispute over these issues as has occurred on another notable airline article. --Россавиа Диалог 11:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Business structure 

message: I've taken off the section added by Pappaca on 16th July. This looks like just investment bank conjecture and is very badly written. This just looks like rumours released by market analysts and doesn't contribute to the article. --graham228221 (talk) 11:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Business and financials revert 

message: If the airline's name is stylized as "easyJet", shouldn't the article have the same name?  I have added in the 'lowercase' template in order to make the article's name appear as "easyJet". Greekboy (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Primarily EasyJet is a name, and thus capitalised according to correct English. The fact that the trademark uses a lowercase "e" makes no difference. See WP:MOSCAPS.Nouse4aname (talk) 07:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then shouldn't the iTunes article be renamed Itunes? Grk1011 (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

text: According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)#Article titles, some article titles can be lowercased if the trade name allows it.  (Ex: eBay, iTunes, iPod) Greekboy (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's only because the second letter is capitalised and the first is pronounced as a separate letter. As EasyJet is not written as eAsyJet, then the first letter is capitalised. Please do not revert this, if you are still confused, discuss here first. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be written as Easyjet as it is a name. --Cyber Fox (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect, they capatilse 'Jet' and because the name has to start with a capital, it should show what it already does, EasyJet. Zaps93 (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No matter if the name starts a new sentence or lies mid sentence it should be styled as Easyjet. The Company may choose to style it as easyJet but that is their prerogative as it is simply their logo. It should not be written as such in ordinary writings.  --Cyber Fox (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stylized name 

message: any thought of submitting this article for good article assessment? LibStar (talk) 07:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article status

message: I don't want to officially review this, but I did want to make my views known, particularly if it helps saves the next reviewer time when stuff can be easily fixed before a detailed review. 
* Many of the earlier concerns still seem relevant, for example, the lead is not WP:LEAD-compliant, introducing a lot of stuff for the first and only time; certain passages still seem non-neutral without citations ("EasyJet's success arguably paved the way for the boom in cheap air travel...")
* Some paragraphs seem too short, such as single sentences. Merge as necessary.
* Quite a bit of stuff still appears unreferenced - or weakly referenced (see also WP:SELFREF).
Hopefully these concerns can be addressed before a proper detailed review is commenced. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 13:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good-Article-style comments 

message: I just removed a dead image, however a scroll down the page reveals many more.  Is there a reason for this or are the deletion police just out again? Mtaylor848 (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing to do with the images somebody did a global change of EasyJet to easyJet which broke all the links. I have reverted to before the change. MilborneOne (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead images 

message: In their 2010 financial report, easyJet say they have 88 options on the Airbus A320 family, valid until 2015. They've just converted 20 new orders from options, purchased 33 new options, and PRs all say that they now have 42 options valid until 2013. Can anybody explain how 88 - 20 + 33 = 42?... Or maybe they now have 42 options specific to the A320 valid until 2013, and 59 options on the A320 family valid until 2015? Slasher-fun (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK found the answer here Slasher-fun (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A320 family options 

message: This section doesnt include the 737-200 they operated when the airline first started. Maybe it should be?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.5.154 (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because they were only borrowed and operated by somebody else although painted in easy colours. MilborneOne (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aircraft operated 

message: Substituted at 14:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment