Talk:Christchurch Airport

message: I've removed Air New Zealand destinations to Nadi, Rarotonga, Osaka and Tokyo because they dont exist. All flights bound from Christchurch to those destinations are not nonstop, and through Auckland under different flight numbers, etc. I've confirmed through ANZ timetable and www.staralliance.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredricedbert (talk • contribs) 01:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are actually direct flights to Christchurch from Tokyo Narita that are non-stop;(Flight NZ90) There is also a flight from Rarotonga to Christchurch Non-stop (NZ841) There is also a direct flight from Nadi(NZ851). I will re-enter these details. Also as a side; the reference given for the use of the crosswind runway includes aircraft up to and including B-767 there is no mention of A340's having lived under that approach and done a lot of flying at CAC I have never heard of an A340 using that runway although I do recall seeing a globemaster... I don't think it is appropriate to state B-777 or A-340 when neither aircraft have used this runway and there is no reference for it.
Cheers Homesick kiwi (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  reduced destinations 

message: According to this (and other sources) Christchurch International Airport officially came into existence in December 1950 as part of the Canterbury centennial celebrations.  Does anyone have access to the source cited for the 1953 date in this article to verify precisely what event occurred in 1953?  From what I've read, the 1953 date is either wrong, or at least misleading. — Matthew25187 (talk) 05:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening date 

message: I removed Tashkent as a destination from the destinations box as I don't think it fits the WP:AIRPORTS-CONTENT definition, failing on all of the "Do not include ad-hoc, irregular or private charter services" points.  However there seems to be some desire to continue its inclusion as it is back.
Now I know these flights happen, about two times a year and have happened for a fair number of years past, and is operated by an Uzbekistan Airways 767 that flies from Tashkent via Malaysia to Christchurch.  It is my understanding that these flights are purely to transport Uzbek fishing boat crews to and from Christchurch as part of joint venture fishing contracts.  This however is not the point and keeping on providing references saying the plane came or here is a photo does not alter the question should it be included in the destinations box.
In my view most if not all charter services are problematic in so much that they are`easy to add but difficult to delete, not usually having a simple timetable for confirmation.
A similar question surrounds the ANZ Port Vila flights that cater for seasonal agricultural workers.Andrewgprout (talk) 05:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, if the only references that can be found for the continuing Uzbek flights are Flightaware and its ilk, then it doesn't belong; if thirty business jets were chartered from thirty different companies to move the fishermen, we wouldn't list them. Companies charter other companies' aircraft to move personnel and cargo all the time, there have been several such where I work this week. It's not the same as flying Thomson or whichever from Manchester to Ibiza. YSSYguy (talk) 10:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not correct YSSYGUY there is more than one ref. The other reference from Uzbekistan airways own website you deleted it because it was a year old while many refs used on Wikipedia are much older than that. Its really being very Pedantic using the 30 business jets as a comparison which is nothing like a scheduled airline which uses the same flight number UB8512 each time and runs to the same scheduled time on each visit to Christchurch for the past 9 years. Because it is regular charter on a regular schedule and timetable from the deleted ref it does meet inclusion criteria. CHCBOY (talk) 05:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: @CHCBOY I was hoping you would come back with some reasons why these flights are not adhoc, irregular and private, please don't continue to drag up references because it is not really helpful.  I spent a lot of time explaining that I don't need convinced that every now and then a Uzbek 767 turns up in Christchurch, there is enough evidence that this is the case.  The question is... (I say again slowly) should   this   be   in   the   destinations   box   and all the evidence so far is that it should not!.  It isn't in the UZ timetable, it is ad hoc - for a specific purpose!, it is irregular Not once a month or every Tuesday or the like, and it is private - chartered by someone for their employees.  YSSY's business jet analogy was a good one, the size of the plane is in-material - and these are not scheduled in the airline meaning of the word -, the WP:AIRPORT content guidelines are based on intent and availability not size of plane.Andrewgprout (talk) 07:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: CHCBOY, you are wrong. As the ref - which wasn't the airline's website - was the summer 2012 flying season schedule, it could only show that there were flights in 2012 - which didn't use the airline's IATA code, according to the ref you are trumpeting; and please don't misrepresent it as being extrapolable to 2014, CHC is not mentioned on that website's equivalent page for the airline's 2014 schedule. Secondly, there is no way that you or I or anyone who isn't a fisherman working on a particular group of fishing vessels can get on those flights. It's exactly analogous to the 30 bizjets scenario - if it wasn't, you could find a ref other than flightaware etc. and there would be a way to book a seat. I tried to find something else, and couldn't. YSSYguy (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tashkent as a destination 

message: I see that some anonymous user  has changed the numbers for this runway without adding a citation.
Regarding the Christchurch airport grass runway it is still showing on the chart here: http://aip.net.nz/pdf/NZCH_70.30Y_70.31Y.pdf  as 02/20 next to the 02/20 main runway so what evidence have you got that it has changed to 01/19. This site also has the grass runway at 02/20 http://www.flyingnz.co.nz/pdfs/industry/CH_grass.pdf. CHCBOY (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grass runway 

message: Regarding the use of a blog, from the project page;
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources
There are exceptions that allow blogs to be used as a reference on wikipedia.
From self published source:
 **Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[7] Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.
So I would include MRCAviation [] in this category as Mike Condon has been reporting on Aviation news for over a decade now.CHCBOY (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable source for UZ 

message: The reference for this service mentions that it's a charter. There is no word of trial anywhere in the article. After having a look on WP Airport content there is nothing specific why it doesn't meet eligibility for inclusion for this type of service. There is inconsistency happening again here with the Asiana flight to Melbourne allowed in which is also 10 flights but the Christchurch entry is not allowed which I didn't get a reply from. What this boils down to in the end is just Kiwi Bashing which shouldn't happen here on Wikipedia. It should be reinstated or delete the Melbourne entry to make it fair. We can describe it charter to be the same as the Melbourne entry. CHCBOY (talk) 09:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a directory, there is no obligation for details in Wikipedia to be comprehensive. To me if you add something even with references that you know is a temporary situation - ie you know you will be deleting the entry in the future then the detail is probably not encyclopaedic and should not really be added. Andrewgprout (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

text: , have another look at the source please: Korean Air will operate ten return services from December 27 between Incheon Airport and “Our Korean arrival numbers have grown 39 per cent over the past five years and this charter service is seen as a trial, which may lead to more flights the following year,”. This exactly what is says, a trial. As Andrewgprout mentions Wikipedia is not a directory and we have no obligation to list every single route, which why we have WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT to determine what is acceptable and what is not. Ajf773 (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *No Korean source has been provided. The policy is to exclude improperly soured entries for future and ending routes. Ajf773 (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

text: *So what is the issue then? Ajf773 (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean Air