Talk:List of largest airlines in Oceania

message: Problems with this article:
* It is not sourced/referenced
* Air Tahiti Nui does not operate 10 aircraft
* Norfolk Air has a single aircraft - not 10
* Air New Zealand does not fly 49 Aircraft  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.215.137 (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are  tags on the numbers. This is because MOST of them, are not sourced. Please, discuss removing them here first, before removing the fact tags. SQL(Query Me!) 00:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual accuracy 

message: Why is the flag for Alliance of the United Nations when it is based in Brisbane?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.47.188 (talk) 13:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia page on the airline says 15, sourced to the airline's website. I think the confusion may be that the yfly mainly Fokker 50s! Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alliance Airways flags 

message: Should Pac Blue have its own entry or be included under Virgin Blue... I'd say it's own because Jetstar has its own entry. MEBpilot (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree as the Qantas entry (I assume) includes JetConnect in New Zealand and Qantas Link in Australia. Also the Air NZ entry includes (I'm assuming again) Air NZ Link subsidaries as well as the Zeal320 subsidary. If Pacific Blue was to be broken out, then we would need to do the same with Qantas and Air NZ. Coming back to your point about JetStar my thoughts are that Qantas seems to operate JetStar as a separate brand with their own website. This is different to Qantas Mainline, JetConnect NZ and Qantas Link AU since are all operated as a joint brand. James Pole (talk) 06:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Pacific Blue have it's own entry?? 

message: I have removed the section completely, due to it not being referenced. When references can be provided, it can be added back. Here's the table as it stood. --Россавиа Диалог 15:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced total passengers 

message: We should have subsidiaries because the rest of the projects have them and it look as if this page is lazy.Sparrowman980 (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Concensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines#Inflation_of_Qantas_fleet_numbers is that subsidiaries are not included, and the inclusion of subsidiaries on other pages are nothing but 'mines bigger than yours' type arguments, hence why they were all nominated for AfD many months ago. --Россавиа Диалог 09:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For me it is very simple: If an airline has its own AOC then it is a separate airline, no matter who owns it. For example, in the case of United and Ted, all Ted flights are operated by United Airlines crew flying under the United Airlines operating certificate, and therefore Ted's fleet and other stats should be included with United's. In the case of QANTAS and Jetstar, Jetstar uses its own AOC (taken over from Impulse) and so is a completely separate airline, owned by Impulse Airlines Holdings Pty Ltd, of which QANTAS happens to be the majority shareholder. So they are separate airlines and they have separate stats. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I just used QANTAS and United as examples to show the difference. Please address the issue of AOCs. It seems pretty obvious to me that if an airline has its own AOC, it is a separate airline, no matter who owns it. Lufthansa is Lufthansa and Swiss is Swiss, despite the fact that the latter is owned by the former. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be pretty content with going either way.  I think the way it's done on List of largest airlines in Asia would probably be better as quite a few Oceanic airlines are a "group" and at a glance this may present the them as smaller than they actually are and presents a whole lot of other problems (see below).  But listing each airline separately would be fine also, as long as it was consistent through both charts. It also brings to question is QantasLink a brand or a subsidiary, ergo, how should it be listed and then if QFLink is, is JetConnect, etc., etc., etc. If it was a question of a few planes, maybe it wouldn't be such a big deal - but it's a question whether to include seventy planes.  Whichever way it is done, it should be consistent through out all of these "List of largest airlines in x" Mvjs (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If QantasLink has its own AOC (for example it is operated as a franchise by another airline in the way Colgan operates CO Express branded flights for Continental) then it should be listed separately, whether or not QANTAS owns 100% of it. If it is just a question of putting a different livery on the plane and offering different service levels on board, as United did with TED, then it should be included with the mainline operation because they are using the mainline AOC. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: QantasLink isn't even a company; it's a brand only; hence it doesn't have its own AOC, with all flights operated by Eastern Australia, Sunstate, National Jet and Alliance. Eastern Australia and Sunstate are wholly owned subsidiaries of Qantas. National Jet and Alliance are not owned by Qantas. --Россавиа Диалог 19:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Answer the question about AOC Sparrowman. If an airline has its own AOC, then it has its own fleet. Swiss has its own fleet separate from Lufthansa even though Lufthansa owns Swiss. If it is correct to list Swiss's fleet separately from Lufthansa's, then it is correct to list separately the fleet of any airline that has its own AOC, no matter who it is owned by. Harry the Dog WOOF 18:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

text: As far as I am concerned, the regulatory authority is the most authoritative source there is. And this pushing of Groups, not only on these articles but on ALL airline articles needs to stop; it is not encyclopaedic, and is more suitable to sites such as airliners.net --Россавиа Диалог 19:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I understand but regulatory authority is for those planes are registerd in that region not ALL airlines are registerd to that certain area. My problem is that people continue to change stuff when we KNOW the facts and but people continue to change it and make false accusations. Sparrowman980 (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess Sparrowman has no answer to the AOC question, so can we assume consensus that if an airline has its own AOC it is listed separately in all statistics, including fleet size, passengers carried, destinations served etc.? Harry the Dog WOOF 07:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I am not sure what you mean? Either an airline has its own AOC or it doesn't. Where is the problem? If it does, as in the case of Jetstar, then it is separate and listed separately. If it doesn't, as in the case of TED, it's operations should be listed as part of the airline under whose AOC it flies. It's not complicated. What you are saying is that Swiss should not have its own entry because it is 100% owned by Lufthansa. That is clearly a nonsense. The easiest way to make sense of it is to go by AOC. An airline is only an airline if it has an AOC. Harry the Dog WOOF 18:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

text: No, what I am saying is that if an airline has its own AOC it is a separate airline, no matter who owns it. If it doesn't, it should be included with the airline under whose AOC it flies. Harry the Dog WOOF 07:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Well if you don't know how to find out whether an airline has its own AOC I wonder what you are doing editing aviation articles so heavily. For example, here is a list of AOC holders in the UK. Each country's aviation authority will publish a similar list. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsidiaries  

message: Air New Zealand Does not fly 49 aircraft  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.215.137 (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean it flies 99 aircraft, to maintain consistency the subsidiaries of all airlines on this list are counted separately to the mainline fleet. There is Air New Zealand; and then there is Air New Zealand Link, which includes Air Nelson, Eagle Airways and Mount Cook Airline. All are separate entities with their aircraft registered to these entities. Jetstar and other subsidiaries are listed separately to Qantas; Pacific Blue and V Australia are not included in the Virgin Blue total; and Air Link and Pel-Air are not counted in the Regional Express total. YSSYguy (talk) 10:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

text: No, I said that Jetstar and other subsidiaries were listed separately; it has nothing to do with what livery each airline is decorated with, but the registered operator of the aircraft and/or whether there are separate AOCs. QantasLink and Jetconnect aircraft have the same livery, but are not included in the Qantas total. If you check the references given, you will see that the Air New Zealand subsidiaries are separate entities. The ATRs are registered to Mount Cook, the Dash 8s are registered to Air Nelson and the 1900s are registered to Eagle. Furthermore, the F27 is still registered to Air New Zealand for some reason, which is why it is mentioned in the notes - it comes up in the search results but is obviously not in ANZ service. YSSYguy (talk) 03:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air New Zealand Fleet size wrong 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of 100 largest law firms by revenue which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 08:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress