Talk:World's largest airlines/Archive 1

message: What are the units for those tables? For example: "Scheduled passangers carried". Passengers carried during what period of time, day/month/year? The same goes for "passenger miles". Passenger miles per what? Day/month/year? It is a shame to provide those data without explanation of the units.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.43.48.130 (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data Units 

message: SkyWest Airlines, Inc. owns both SkyWest and ASA.  AirFleets.net shows SkyWest with a fleet of 289 (293 by the SkyWest website) and 162 for ASA (160 by the ASA website).  Should the fleet-size ranking reflect that?  If it should, then several other airlines would need to be updated.  Delta owns Mesaba and Compass, adding 102 and 36 planes to their fleet, respectively.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.120.112 (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Include Subsidiaries? 

message: Anybody care to put up some revenue rankings?--Jerryseinfeld 18:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For the global rankings? Anyway....considering this list may keep growing, how about we branch it out to seperate lists as has been done for the corresponding airports pages?--Huaiwei 09:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revenue rank? 

message: in the list of no. of airplanes per airline, it says air canada has 329, but actually air canada has 336 aircraft.(check  the air canada article for more clarification) Someone change it
:So fix it. The button says edit this page. Cool Bluetalk to me 20:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  air canada has 336 aircraft not 329 

message: These figures are way, way off.
--Mets 05:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No section title

message: Re  - User:Huaiwei prefers "  flights within the People's Republic of China ", while I prefer " flights to mainland China ". While both are technically correct, the former is illogical in the sense that it's in effect even defining flights within Hong Kong (or within Macao) as international, which is ridiculous. — Instantnood 19:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hong Kong has one airport that serves airlines.  Macau has one airport that serves airlines.  Therefore, there are no flights WITHIN Hong Kong or Macau that are not to other international destinations.  You have previously argued that things like helicopters or private aviation are exceptions.  But, as this is a list of large airlines, it has nothing to do with helicopters and private aviation.  Even in other cases, those exceptions to the general may be more accurate, but it is less useful to the reader of a general encyclopedia to worry about such minor exceptions. SchmuckyTheCat 19:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are airlines offering scheduled helicopter services, but that's not quite relevant to the discussion here, since only Cathay Pacific, Dragonair and Air Macau are on the list. Defining international by " all flights within the People's Republic of China " is illogical in the sense that it's defining flights within Hong Kong (or within Macao) as international. The key issue that has to be addressed in the footnote is that flights between Hong Kong and mainland China, or Macao and mainland China, are classified as international, despite within the same sovereign state. — Instantnood 20:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And so flights between HK and Macau are domestic? Allow me to just remind, that the footnote was actually not meant to describe all possible scenarios, but all existing airline flights, considering they are footnotes of airline passenger figures currently available. To say there are XXX passengers from point A and B, and to have a footnote to XXX saying some of these passengers were treated as International despite flying within the same country makes perfect sense. We dont have to consider discussing the possibility of rockets zooming off from HK into outer space and slamming back into it later now or in the distant future, for that is obviously beyond its scope.--Huaiwei 03:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The footnote is intended for tell why flights within the same sovereign state could be international. Therefore it should tell what exactly is considered international. Flights between Hong Kong or Macao and mainland China, and flights between Hong Kong and Macao, are considered international. Flights within mainland China (or within Hong Kong, or within Macao) are not. In other words, flights within the PRC may or may not be international. — Instantnood 15:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one who introduced the footnotes, and my intention is to provide footnotes for the statistics in question, and not a lengthy explaination on cross-border political situations. For the record, you chose to wikiwar with me even when the sentence reads Flights between the special administrative regions of Hong Kong, Macau and the rest of the People's Republic of China are classified as "International", which would have easily covered whatever you attempted to explain above, but of course you must amend it since a certain favourite keyphrase of yours is missing, I recon?--Huaiwei 17:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: " I was the one who introduced the footnotes, and my intention is to .. " - Nobody owns the footnotes. — Instantnood 18:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Nobody takes subsequent ownership of foodnotes too.--Huaiwei 18:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: International

message: These figures are way, way off.
--Mets 05:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed Stats

message: Does anyone think the article would be better organized if each continent had its own article (ie: Largest Airlines of Europe)? Greenboxed 22:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, although it may make more sense to split the article according to ranking criteria first as has been done for airports and Maritime ports--Huaiwei 12:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it wouldn't help.  This article is mostly statistics and isn't overly large or disorganized. SchmuckyTheCat 16:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I have split the articles as suggested, and to follow the format in World's largest airline for example. This should give room for list expansion in their respective articles.--Huaiwei 15:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Should each area have its own artcle?

message: according to the Wikipedia page.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Express#Fleet.  FedEx has 626 aircraft plus 18 on order.
:We aren't reliable. We don't trust ourselves most of the time. Cool Bluetalk to me 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fedex]] 

message: I started to cleanup the article by adding a table for the first set of data. Any comments please speak! --Flymeoutofhere 11:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if I'll have time to do it all, either. If someone else wants to, feel free to do so. Flymeoutofhere 12:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: to all you guys who put this page together - great job!
lets make sure this stays updated though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Htg (talk • contribs) 06:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  quick thank you 

message: There is something wrong with the IATA numbers shown in the citation previously on the page for international travellers. This lists the total number of passengers that Ryanair carried in 2006. (Currently year to date they are up to about 43 million - http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/news.php?yr=07&month=jun&story=pax-en-050607) But by no means were all of those passengers international. Ryanair flies domestic routes in several countries. I have put a Fact tag on the list for this reason. Unless someone can cite a source to explain the disparity, I don't think we can rely on those figures. Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have returned the cn tag to the international passengers table as the IATA stats cannot be relied on. Ryanair hasdomestic flights in several countries including Ireland, the UK, Italy and Spain. IATA is saying that the total number of passengers Ryanair carried last year (a shade over 40 million) were international. That is simply not the case, and so the IATA stats must be suspect. Harry was a white dog with black spots 20:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the IATA, the numbers on it's website is what is reported by each individual airline. Seen here.] By the the way, since the numbers from the IATA website are what is currently in the article, the IATA website should be listed as the source. --Michael Greiner 19:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then clearly Ryanair is lying in what they are reporting. (BTW, these are not IATA figures. They are being reported by IATA from other sources.) Ryanair is clear on its website that it carried a total of 40.5 million passengers in 2006, including all domestic ones (see link in the footnote to the figures). If it is reporting to official sources that it carried 40.5 million international passengers, it is trying to mislead people. Wikipedia should not use sources that have been manipulated as these figures are. Another source is needed to justify the numbers. Citing a source that is clearly wrong, even if it is an official one, is not good enough. Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Nearly all Ryanair flights are international, very few flights are domestic within Ireland, which explains why the total and international figures are very close. I would suggest that we should change Note 1 to reflect this viewpoint. MilborneOne 16:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A domestic flight is a flight entirely within the borders of one country, not necessarily the country where the airline is based. So their flights between Pisa and Alghero in Italy are classed as domestic for example, not just their flights in Ireland. The total and international figures are not just "very close" - they are identical. So either way, there is something wrong. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct and wrong at the same time. While the definition of a "domestic flight" is correct, it is certainly dependent on just where the airline is based at. A flight operated "domestically" within the same country an airline is based and a "domestic" flight in a country other than the airline's home country requires entirely different air rights, the later of which is very much rarer in the industry. Therefore, it is an industry practise not to classify the later as "domestic".--Huaiwei 01:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but within the EU open skies agreement, the EU constitutes one market for its members when it comes to cabotage. Therefore a flight entirely within the EU could almost be classed as "domestic". But very few airlines (Air Berlin and Easyjet being two but nowhere on the scale of Ryanair) actually operate domestic flights in countries where they are not registered. Ryanair is unique in the extent that it does this, so the position does need to be clarified. But it is certainly true that not all Ryanair flights are international, so the figures remain suspect. Harry was a white dog with black spots 08:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An open-skies agreement dosent mean a cabotage flight suddenly becomes a domestic one (in the classic sense). We may discuss till the dawn of time, but unless you can cite a verfiable true-life example of any airline which actually classifies cabotage flights as domestic flights, then we arent going to get very far. On the other hand, I know of several airlines who do not do as you claim. In the Asian market alone, Singapore Airlines flies between Johannesburg and Cape Town, but all its flights are classified international. Emirates Airline fly between Rome and Milan, but do not report any domestic flights. Cathay Pacific flies between Cairns and Brisbane, Adelaide and Melbourne as well as Penang and Kuala Lumpur, but is also considered a fully international airline.--Huaiwei 10:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well then Ryanair is lying in the link you put above, because their rolling year-on-year stats show a total of 40.532 million passengers as at the end of December 2006. They didn't reach 42.5 million year-on-year until March 2007, according to their rolling stats. Why the difference? So yes, there are still doubts. Harry was a white dog with black spots 09:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah well they probably can't decide if they are supposed to factor in no-shows then? :D Your concers are probably valid, but I do find that note a tad too long.--Huaiwei 10:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More International

message: the old way looked better i think it should be reverted.(Sparrowman980)
:Wikipedia isnt just about asthetics. We have to consider usability and ease of content management. The old list was way too long, and there is not much room left to consider other possible means of measuring an airline's size. Ideas to split the list up into multiple pages has been mooted since last year, and I have decided to be bold and go ahead with it, such that it is similar in style somewhat to World's busiest port.--Huaiwei 16:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did tell you to read, didnt I? Check the discussions above this page. If you cannot offer a better reason for your constant reverts, I will tag your edits as vandalism and sound out the admins accordingly.--Huaiwei 03:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: To repeat myself, there has been prior discussions on this. Kindly do some reading before constantly repeating the same refrain.--Huaiwei 03:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: One user stated reservations that it may not be neccesary as he felt the page won't grow much further. That was a full eight months ago, when the page wasent that huge yet. The page has apparantly grown alot since then, so is his comment still relevant? Kindly note the context.--Huaiwei 04:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have great difficulty comprehending the logic behind your last comment.--Huaiwei 04:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NEW WAY IT LOOKS  

message: User:Sparrowman980 recently moved this page from World's largest airline to The World's largest airlines. This undiscussed moved contravenes the naming conventions on at least three counts: Prefer singular nouns, Avoid the definite article ("the") at the beginning of the page name, and Lowercase second and subsequent words in titles (some may feel World is a proper noun thou). I was able to remove the "the", to where it is now, but I could not move it back to where it was. Kindly voice any objections for the above move request if you have any, particularly after taking into account relevant naming convention guidelines.--Huaiwei 12:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Singular titles are preferred in most cases, but not when they would yield titles that don't make sense. Sports teams, for example, keep their plural forms. This article is not about "the world's largest airline" and doesn't try to be. A list title would take care of the plural problem. I'd suggest List of airlines by size or something along those lines. Dekimasuよ! 14:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be, if my proposed revamp of this article is reinstated. Note also World's busiest airport and World's busiest port. The subject in question is no longer a list of entities, but the claim of "world's largest foo" itself. Btw, names of sports teams are proper nouns, and will be plural if that is the official name of the said entity. This, on the other hand, is not a proper noun.--Huaiwei 14:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Not that I can help it, as you continue to wreak havoc in the same few articles, and without consultation to boot, so that was kinda ironical I would think!--Huaiwei 14:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: During the AFD discussion, User:Crazysuit suggested moving this page to either List of airlines by size or List of largest airlines.  I concur with the latter suggestion, but wanted to be sure this has consensus with the editors here before making the move.  I note the page originally existed at the latter location but was moved here later... can anybody explain why? JulesH 07:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current page title contravenes WP:MOS. Fully support moving it back to List of largest airlines with regional or other forks as necessary. Wl219 17:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article was renamed when it was revamped into this version, as per similar articles for World's busiest airport and World's busiest port. A single user suddenly came forward and began to wikiwar over this new format without really giving a good reason for it, except that "major changes should be discussed prior to changes", despite the fact that there has been prior discussion on this right here in this talkpage. The article has now settled in his preferred version due to my refusal to continue a revert war, despite countless discussions where he has garnered little support. He then proceeded to create a forked article at List of largest airlines by category, which is essentially similar to this article but with his favourite picture at the top of the article (which I sense could be his real reason for revert warring). I do not feel this article should be moved back until the above dispute is settled.--Huaiwei 13:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested move. 

message: I've put a request to move the page to "List of largest airlines by category". Any comments? Cool Bluetalk to me 16:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Sparrowman980 has been involved in past heated disputes in this article, and has since created a forked article at List of largest airlines by category with his preferred version. I am not too sure if the above request makes much sense in this regard, when that article is probably good for deletion for being a forked article to advance a POV.--Huaiwei 13:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * That article has been changed to redirect to this one. -Fnlayson 03:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: The recent changes to this article amount to vandalism in my opinion. Twice now the consensus has been overwhelmingly to keep this article. Yet the recent changes seem to be an attempt to delete it by the back door in defiance of that consensus. Making major changes to an article that has been voted "keep" in a given format twice in rapid succession without any discussion is not acceptable, especially when it appears that the editor is trying to impose his will against the consensus. I have reverted to the version before the changes were made. If an editor wants to make major changes, they should be discussed here first. Harry was a white dog with black spots 07:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Harry.  I was worried about this article, it started flying apart at the seams.  I'm glad someone put it back together, in a useful format. —Fudoreaper 05:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Could you care to explain this version which you tried to implement, especially when it seems to be similar yet inferior version to the one  you kept reverting over?--Huaiwei 15:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes

message: Do we include groups or not? We need to be consistent. Some are and some aren't. Harry was a white dog with black spots 18:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, groups should not be included. If an airline has its own AOC, it is a separate airline and should not be included to inflate figures for any 'group'. My two kopeks. --Russavia 18:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One should not simplistically assume group figures are there just to "inflate" figures for the fun of it. Group figures may actually be a more technically accurate reflection of the company's operational performance, especially where all airlines are fully owned within that group by a dominant carrier. It is not uncommon for airlines to move regional or local operations to feeder airlines, and by doing this, it will appear that the main airline is doing less well than it actually is. We end up giving this impression that smaller, compact airlines are larger relatively.--Huaiwei 01:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Groups

message: After a cleanup and expansion of this article to include all 9 tables taken direct from the IATA's website, User:Sparrowman980 now insists on adding Qantas figures into the table despite its non existence in the primary sources. And he did so by using figures for Qantas Group of 36 million, when Qantas itself flies about 24 million (in 2006). All other entries by IATA shows figures only for the airline, not the group, and his persistent inclusion of a single airline's group figure renders the entire table inaccurate. This he persists in doing twice despite my notice. It should also be mentioned that User:Sparrowman980 has dropped some interesting comments in my talkpage concurrently.--Huaiwei 01:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In light of User:Sparrowman980's persistent revert warring and refusal to discuss this in a sensible and amicable manner, I have made a 3RR nomination against him at. My only regret is my failure to do this sooner, instead of engaging in this tit-for-tat with him in the first place.--Huaiwei 06:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I have restored the page to reflect data in stated source. Any further protests, please indicate them here instead of simply reverting.--Huaiwei 01:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I note that a  User:Sparrowman98 has almost immediately reinserted Qantas figures, but this time by inserting its total passenger figures (year ended 30 June) in the international figures table. Needless to say, this factual inaccuracy was promptly removed.--Huaiwei 02:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Considering you were blocked in the previous instance, that probably tells you something also. You have been warned before against your persistently disruptive behaviour by multiple users. Take time to reflect on that.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest reverts

message: This RFC is over the inclusion of Qantas Group's operational figures in a primary table devoid of airline groups. The tables in question were sourced from IATA's official site, and represents operational figures for airlines minus subsidiaries as at 31 December 2006. User:Sparrowman980 has been adding figures for Qantas which are for the entire Qantas Group of subsidiaries (Qantas + Qantaslink+ Jetstar+ Jetconnect), and which are dated 30 June 2007. This would be statistically inaccurate. I have voiced this concern in the article talkpage in the preceeding section, but he has failed to respond. In the meantime, we have been involved in a revert war, and he has dropped some comments in my talkpage which appear to be veering towards WP:OWN. I request for outsider intervention to resolve this dispute.--Huaiwei 05:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment

message: Anybody explain why:
*Scheduled passengers carried lists Continental Airlines as unplaced at the bottom of the table ?
*Scheduled International passengers has two extra unplaced airlines at the bottom ?
*Scheduled passenger-kilometres flow has Singapore Airlines unplaced at the bottom of the table ?
*All the other tables have 10 (but see above above could be 11 or 12 sometimes) but the fleet has 21 ?
I could be WP:BOLD and delete stuff but I may have missed something but it does looks wrong to the reader as if somebody hasd forgotten to delete lines. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to User:Sparrowman980 all the tables are now 10 except fleet size, anybody now why that should be different? MilborneOne (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the explanation Huaiwei, I understand it just wasnt clear from the table. I have split the fleet list into passengers and cargo and limited the list to 10. The cargo airlines include a lot of franchise operators and in FedEx case a large number of single-engined C208s which appear to distort the fleet table. MilborneOne (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I wanted to add a "-" in their ranking cells, but that causes the entire row to become invisible, so I left it as that for now. Meanwhile, I agree to the overhaul in the fleet section. Besides splitting them between cargo and passenger, we may even consider having tables for narrow-body and wide-body fleets only...or even jet vs turboprops! Too much detail, perhaps, so it can go into List of world's largest airlines by fleet?--Huaiwei (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a bit tiresome! I have returned fleets back to 10 to keep all the tables consistent. This keep being reverted to a list of 20 or 21. Can reverters please explain why this table should be different to all the others in the article. Thank You. MilborneOne (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsistent presentation

message: I think it is more specific if you just restore the other ten airlines that have been deleted because it is more specific that way.
User:Gorillazfeelgoodinc (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for asking, not sure what "more specific" means have you a better english word that relates to what you are trying to say. Not sure why an extra ten is OK why not hundred! The list was limited to ten because all the other lists on this page are limited to ten. Dont get me wrong if their is a good reason why the fleet list, or any other list on the page should be longer then we just need a rational explanation and consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: More specific in what sense? Please do be more specific in your request here, because that is simply not a good enough reason to buck the trend here. If one wants an extensive list, List of world's largest airlines by fleet already serves that purpose.--Huaiwei (talk) 07:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Fleet size only includes the mainline fleet, the source gives total including Lufthasa Regional and other airlines. Spikydan1 (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: We need to add more airlines to '''largest airlines by fleet size'''

message: There has been some points of contention on this article as to whether the figures published by IATA for Ryanair carriage of international passengers is correct or not. I have spoken on the phone to the statistics section of IATA in Montreal about another matter, and remembered this issue and asked them about it. Firstly, the lady I spoke to did mention that they have had many enquiries in regards to this, but yes, Ryanair carrying the most international passengers is a correct statistic, even when taking into account the small number of domestic services it operates. I was told that IATA and ICAO have an agreement that IATA will utilise forms and definitions as set down by ICAO. The statistics are reported, from my understanding, and will attempt to get this in writing from IATA, to IATA from the airlines via way of the airlines' reporting to their State ICAO member, which are then compiled and utilised by organisations such as IATA in their own reporting and statistics. The form which is used for such reporting is Form A - (01/00) - AIR TRANSPORT REPORTING FORM - TRAFFIC — COMMERCIAL AIR CARRIERS. The blank form is available for download at  (PDF file - 62kb), or if that link is not working at ECONOMIC ANALYSES AND DATABASES (EAD) SECTION - STATISTICS PROGRAMME - STATISTICAL AIR TRANSP0RT REPORTING FORMS - Air Transport Bureau division of the International Civil Aviation Organization. On Page 3 of the Reporting Instructions section under a heading titled "DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED" it states the following:
Flight stage. A flight stage is the operation of an aircraft from take-off to its next landing. A flight stage is classified as either international or domestic based on the following definitions:
:International. A flight stage with one or both terminals in the territory of a State, other than the State in which the air carrier has its principal place of business.
:Domestic. A flight stage not classifiable as international. Domestic flight stages include all flight stages flown between points within the domestic boundaries of a State by an air carrier whose principal place of business is in that State. Flight stages between a State and territories belonging to it, as well as any flight stages between two such territories, should be classified as domestic. This applies even though a stage may cross international waters or over the territory of another State.
:NOTES:
:1. In the case of multinational air carriers owned by partner States, traffic within each partner State should be reported separately as domestic and all other traffic as international.
:2. “Foreign” cabotage traffic (i.e. traffic carried between city-pairs in a State other than the one where the reporting carrier has its principal place of business) should be reported as international traffic. (MY BOLDING)
:3. A technical stop should not result in any flight stage being classified differently than would have been the case had the technical stop not been made.
As per the 2nd note, domestic flights of Ryanair in the UK, France, Italy, etc, etc are classed by ICAO and IATA as international flights because they are between city-pairs in a State other than the one where Ryanair has its principal place of business, which for Ryanair is Ireland. Therefore, the figure of 40,532,000 for Ryanair is correct given that they are reporting inline with requirements of the ICAO, the Irish authorities (of which Ireland is a member state of the ICAO) and IATA. 
It is not our job as Wikipedians to engage in original research, which means we can't very analyse figures or anything else, we have to state what reliable sources write. Either IATA and ICAO are reliable or they are not. I believe they are, as do others due to their publications being widely used by news media, journalists, authors, etc, so I am placing Ryanair figures back, and removing the notes inline with how these figures are reported. And I will obtain written confirmation of this from IATA, however that should not really be required as we need to report what they report. 
On a sidenote, a little original research of my own, inline with the above, the only route which would be considered domestic as per reporting guidelines would be the Dublin-Cork route. Are figures for that route published or known? Or when did the route begin, was it operational in '06? --Россавиа Диалог 20:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the note based on the above. The number is still not entirely accurate, but I doubt the number of domestic Irish flights would knock FR out of top spot. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If Ryanair is largest by "Scheduled international passengers carried", then they should be included in "Scheduled international passenger-kilometres flown" even if they don't fly intercontinental ? What is their figure ?--BIL (talk) 11:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ryanair most international passengers carried - is correct 

message: Qantas fly 230 aircraft, there are more since this statistic, with the new A380's. This would put Qantas 15th in passenger fleet size
The Qantas fleet size is listed at 135...Fleet size does not include orders or reginal aircraft not flown by Qantas Spikydan1 (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qantas fleet size

message: I dont think the two flags should be there since it's a french-incorporated company headquartered in France. It's majority-owned by french investors and adding the dutch flag doesn't make sense. True KLM was originally dutch but it's not anymore. Abdelkweli (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Strictly speaking Air France-KLM should not be in the list anyway. It is a holding company and the two airlines operate under their own operating licences and should be listed in their own right. MilborneOne (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with MilborneOne...This page is about airlines and not airline holding companies. If you can find numbers for the two airlines then go ahead and break them up. Spikydan1 (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree. Airlines are businesses. It isn't terribly important if one business uses two brands. No one would break up Coca-Cola's revenue by drink before adding the Coca-Cola company to a list of companies by size. This article is already seriously skewed towards the needs of airplane enthusiasts, rather than people interested in business, and your proposal would make this imbalance even worse. Piccadilly (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Brand names matter. Strictly speaking SAS is four airlines, with names (translated to English) SAS Sweden, SAS Denmark, SAS Norway, SAS International. But they use one brand name. Lufthansa has a daughter company Lufthansa CityLine and one Germanwings. Lufthansa CityLine uses the Lufthansa brand name, but Germanwings should not be included. --BIL (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I kind of think we need to acknowledge the fact we are looking at the biggest companies.  Two or three airlines under one umbrella company basically constitute one airline as they are not designed to compete with one another but compliment one another to gain market share, against other airlines firms and companies under one "umbrella" also seeking to be the biggest.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.128.76.155 (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

text: There are good points on both sides here, but either way we have to decide on a standard to use here, especially since we've now got British Airways-Iberia in basically the exact same setup.  Should we list Air France, KLM, BA, and Iberia as four separate airlines?  If not, we need to use two, and exactly two companies in each list.  We would also need to decide which flags would be used.  In my opinion, these are four separate airlines.  They don't fit squarely into our lists, but there's a difference between Air France-KLM and, say, United-United Express, or even Lufthansa-Germanwings.  As stated above, we aren't interested in holding companies, which is why United and Continental are still separate.  A parent/subsidiary relationship is different than two airlines owned by one holding company.  Further, who cares about how many destinations BA and Iberia served together?  I vote for splitting the four companies up, and that seems to be the consensus here.75.34.181.147 (talk) 04:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If there were an article entitled Airline holding company—and maybe there should be—it would be entirely appropriate to list the largest ones. But a holding company is not an airline. As long as two airlines are using different liveries and have different public identities, they're operating as two airlines, not one. This difference strikes me as pretty basic.—e.g., NWA disappeared with its acquisition while KLM did not. Rivertorch (talk) 05:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air France-KLM

message: This article seems to have been assembled by airplane enthusiasts rather than business enthusiasts, because it is missing a list by the criterion generally used to rank businesses, which is what airlines are, namely revenue. Piccadilly (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing list - revenue

message: Ryanair has a small number of domestic routes in Ireland (Dublin-Cork, Dublin-Kerry). Therefore, the total passengers flown can simply not be the same number as total international passengers flown. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  International again 

message: With the merger fully complete, and all flights switching over to Delta certificates, shouldn't Northwest not show up on this list anymore and be folded into the delta numbers? We should look up the new data based on how they merged routes and fleets etc. 129.170.241.32 (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't change the past and most of the figures on the page are historical, the only numbers that are present are the fleet size and desinations served and it looks like they were already combined. Spikydan1 (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northwest/Delta 

message: Would the figures for their international passengers carried and freight tonne flown be somehow double counted? They both carry many many transit passengers (e.g. Emirates on routes between South Asia/East Asia and Europe), and they use their hubs for distributing their cargo.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.177.66.30 (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emirates and Singapore Airlines - double-counted figures?

message: May I just suggest we tackle the accuracy of this list by working from the bases of The list of airline holding companies, parent companies, and investment firms, involved in the airline passenger and cargo transportation business.
Yeah I know it is a complicated task, but airlines are pretty meaningless when they are actually owned by another entity which can buy, or sell, or close them down at random to satisfy a firms overall financial goals or needs in relation to its other airlines.  Martinair Holland for example is an airline on its way out to meet the needs of KLM-Air France which it is owned by.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.183.134.72 (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of airline holding companies]]

message: Why are airlines being listed (for fleet size) as airlines that are owned by other airlines or those that have merged, even when there are separate operating certificates? This makes no sense. Also, can we get some accurate numbers for the fleets (not including regionals)? 174.5.11.131 (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is going on? 

message: According to the Lufthansa entry, and Lufthansa's website (http://investor-relations.lufthansa.com/en/fakten-zum-unternehmen/fleet.html), they have more than 700 aircraft in their fleet (they report 710). How comes the number in the list here is so much lower, surely 432 aircraft aren't operated by subsidiaries? Also, on the topic of subsidiaries and holding companies - I agree with Piccadilly that this article is probably more useful in terms comparing businesses rather than operators. Whatsoverthere (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lufthansa fleet size 

message: Some lists list British Airways, some the international airlines group. Consistency is needed between the terms 94.1.42.108 (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not the same thing - British Airways is an airline the International Airlines Group isnt it is just a holding company. As this is about the world's largest airline the groups should not be listed but as as the game is to get your favourite airline at the top of the list then both groups and airlines are listed. So the whole page is inconsistent. MilborneOne (talk) 13:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency: BA Iberia/ International Airlines Group