Talk:Airline codes

message: I'm not sure that this list of airline codes is truly encyclopedic. DangerDoctor2 10:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedic? 

message: I 'finished' the merge of articles, I found and corrected many errors.  Codes did not agree with the articles, article names differed in the code based articles.  I corrected these as I found them.  There is still some work remaining:
# The list needs to be sorted by airline name
# The IATA only codes need to be reformatted and added to the main table
# Missing airline links need to be verified since some are there with different names
Vegaswikian 19:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup remaining 

message: Vegaswikian, as I see you are merging, editing, etc this list, I will leave this edit needed here for your info. Astair Airlines was named to Interavia Airlines in 2005. The IATA code is ZA. The ICAO code is SUW. The callsign is ASTAIR. You may want to update this as you progress. I will list any additional changes as I come across them. --Russavia 18:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astair/Interavia 

message: These are 2 different airlines. Myanma Airways has IATA code of UB and ICAO of UBA and callsign of UNIONAIR. Myanmar Airways International has IATA of 8M ICAO of UBA and callsign of UNIONAIR. How to change this list to reflect this? --Russavia 12:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I understand what you have said, I still stand by the fact that two organisations cant have the same code, perhaps the Myanmar authorities have just ignored the ICAO rules. Perhaps the domestic flights just use the IATA code for business which is OK. Would agree that airframes.org is a good site I use it all the time for ICAO24 codes, but I use http://www.eurocontrol.int/icaoref/icao_8585_aircraft_operators_browse.jsp for codes and callsigns as it an official not an amateur site.MilborneOne 11:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Airline codes was updated.  Note any editor can update the table with updated or new information. BTW, anyone know if the call signs for those airlines are correct?  Right now they both show being the same. Vegaswikian 18:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MMA does not appear to have a callsign allocated in ICAO 8585 Edition 140 and the callsign is marked + which indicates assignment postponed (which I think means callsign to be allocated later). MilborneOne 19:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myanma Airways and Myanmar Airways International 

message: OK, the split is finished.  In going through this, it looks like there is a lot of cleanup remaining,  This includes items like:
*RAF or Royal Air Force
*for the RAF entries how to list for the various locations and names
*fix links so that they go to a name following convention, so drop the inc. in the links
*Move comments from the company name to comments
*cleanup the airline name where it includes multiple names
*Maybe change all of the foreign language names to their common English names leaving the foreign language in comments
*All of the United States entries, various departments and the Army and coast guard and...
If anyone has the time...   Vegaswikian 19:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now the pages are hidden how do we edit the source pages please.MilborneOne 19:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone else moved them to templates since the bots kept trying to tag them as articles requiring cleanup and notabiltiy and several other tags.  To edit one like the M section just edit Template:Airline codes/M.  If you have a suggestion for including this on the page, please offer one.  The ones I have are not what I consider workable, but then they may be better then nothing.  Vegaswikian 20:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the explanation, I was sure I had edited them before ! MilborneOne 20:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entry cleanup 

message: The following statement is absolute nonsense:
"Call sign confusion happens when two or more flights with similar flight numbers fly close to each other, i.e. KL645 and KL649 or BA466 and BA646".
This is nonsense for a number of reasons. For a start non of these identifiers is a call sign. A call sign is composed of the ICAO airline code, followed by a 4 digit octal code (with the series beginning with '7' being reserved for various emergencies such as depressurisation, hijack or radio failure) . The 4 digit code is determined when the flight plan is filed. It may, or may not remain the same for the entire flight, but it may also change for every sector that the aircraft enters (or anything in between). Whilst every attempt is made to keep the changes to a minimum (not least to minimise the the work of the pilots in changing the code), changes are nonetheless required in flight. It will depend on which numbers are already in use in the sectors that the aircraft enters, and which are already in use in other sectors under the same (or bordering) authority . Call sign confusion will have nothing to do with the closeness of the aircraft. Confusion could be caused if an aircraft enters a territory, and there is another in a different sector in the same territory which is squawking the same code. This may not always cause confusion, but it may and the aircraft may be hundreds of miles apart. 
In short, the call sign exists primarily for air traffic control purposes.
Myredroom (talk) 10:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Callsigns are not 4 digit octal codes I think you may be confusing callsign with the transponder code. MilborneOne (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Commercial airlines identify flights with the two digit IATA code and 1-4 numbers.  When air traffic control contacts these aircraft, they use the call sign followed by the numeric part of the flight number.  So say they are trying to contact AA9876, air traffic would call American 9876.  On the radar screens, I believe, that the flight would show as AA9876 and that is tracked by the four character sqwak code that is assigned to the transponder and that transponder code could change.  Now from your comment, an article probably needs to be updated.  Vegaswikian (talk) 00:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, I guess I need to arrange for that control tower tour!  In any case, it appears that there may be multiple uses of the phrase call sign. The way it has been used here is mostly for the radio call signs as in my example above.  You are identifying another use.  Vegaswikian (talk) 08:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the ATC system how does the 4-digit octal cope with alpha-numeric callsigns (Like "BAW4NQ") ? MilborneOne (talk) 12:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that they do a mapping equating the assigned code to the call sign.  So when you are getting ready to talk off, ATC assigns you a squawk code that you dial in.  The system converts that to the aircraft call sign so that the ATC and the pilot use the call sign which for GA aircraft is usually the registration number and radar can track by the call sign.  Are these assignments different in various parts of the world?  If so, clearly we need an article to explain this to avoid confusion. Can any current pilots out there chime in?  Vegaswikian (talk) 19:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing really to do with this article then - transponder codes are described in Transponder (aviation) and related articles. MilborneOne (talk) 20:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry the octal transponder code has nothing to do with the callsign and is not the same thing. When the ATC system first receives the octal code from the secondary radar it looks up the callsign in the flight planning computer and presents the aircraft radio callsign onto the radar screen. This presents the controller with the info he need to communicate by radio with the aircraft as described by Vegaswikian. So it is possible to get callsign confusion and have two aircraft American 52 or United 52 on at the same time. In Europe alpha numeric callsigns have been introduced to avoid this type of confusion. Thus the radio callsign does not allways agree with the timetabled flight number. Ryanair Flight RYR556 from Dublin to Manchester uses the radio callsign RYR5XA. MilborneOne (talk) 15:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call sign confusion confusion 

message: The way this page and all other code pages is, to me, confusing and hard to edit for the general user. I'd like to propose a new way to do it. Instead of Airline codes-All being made up of three template, Template:Airline codes/All being made up of many sub templates, and Airline codes-A being made up of 3 transcluded template (the main one  being the one that needs to be edited most, but is the most incomprehensible one to look at) the information on table should be on the page. The information will transclude to the main list (Airline codes-All) in exactly the same way, but we can also remove the need for Template:Airline codes/All and all other letter templates. Specifically, this is what I mean:
*Airline codes - stays the same
*Airline codes-All - goes from



to:




...

*Airline codes-A - goes from



to:

|-
|AN
|AAA
|Ansett Australia
|ANSETT
|Australia
|defunct
|-
....
|-
|6R
|DRU
|Alrosa Mirny Air Enterprise
|MIRNY
|Russia
|


Yes, the pages get a little longer (well, a lot longer) but all the templates  thru  can be eliminated and deleted. The data will then be easier to see and edit. This may sound confusing, but it's currently being done at List of airports in the United States. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Editing has always been a problem.  The current structure evolved over disputes over notability when the data was split out to using templates rather then articles and then only having the template used in one article.  So if the appearance is about the same and it would be easier to edit, I don't see a problem.  If you can also check the sort order by airline name at the same time, that would be great. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Conversion complete, nobody should notice a thing, but the lists are now much easier to access to edit. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup coding 

message: Based on an analogy to the "don't change American-English spelling to English-English or vice versa just because you favour one over the other" -rule, the Retaining the existing variety, (see WP:ENGVAR)  I think this should be undone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Airline_codes&diff=next&oldid=149600374
Formerly very active, now only occasional editor (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted it back - nothing to do with engvar it is just an example with no reason to change it. MilborneOne (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad sport 

message: Is anyone in favour of a decoding table for IATA airline codes, like the one found here for country codes? 
A table for IATA codes would have to be bigger, as some airlines have numbers in their codes as well. 
26 letters + 10 numbers (0-9) = 36, 36^2 = 1296 combinations, or, if "0" isn't, or cannot be, used, then:
26 + 9 = 35, 35^2 = 1225 combinations.
I certainly think such a table would give a nice overview of IATA airline codes, however, is there a chance that such a table might be "too big" and, consequently, slow down browsers?
203.33.165.41 (talk) 07:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decoding Table 

message: SYX was originally Astral Aviation, Inc. d/b/a Skyway Airlines; later Skyway Airlines, Inc., d/b/a Midwest Connect.  Regional airline service for Midwest Airlines, Milwaukee WI.  Never "Skywalk."  Thanks for the correction.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikepurves (talk • contribs) 22:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  SYX "Skywalk" error 

message: Should this article contain historic usage of callsigns?
I see that there are a good number of airlines that have ceased operation or merged with another, but on the other hand there are plenty that are listed that no longer exist.
I think it creates confusion to have defunct airlines with duplicate callsigns.  Maybe those could be split off into a historic callsigns or just removed entirely if another airline is using the callsign/ICAO code.Ksevio (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is this any different than a dab page?  To remove it completely removes history. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There are hundreds (thousands?) of airline codes missing.  Probably about a few hundred articles just on Wikipedia relating to airlines not listed here.  Having the up-to-date codes can be useful, but a lot more work needs to go into this if it's to include the full list of all callsigns ever.  To put it in perspective, there are about 5,800 here and about 6,500 ACTIVE callsigns. Ksevio (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's one problem with lists.  They are generally never completed. The red links show how many airline articles are missing.  That said some of those airlines may not be notable enough to have an article, so the only information we may keep on them is in the list. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I used to keep the old callsign/code list up to date but since it changed to the big sortable tables with everything in it a few years ago be honest it is just to difficult to maintain. Perhaps we need to think about going back to the original alphabetic lists. MilborneOne (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historic Callsigns? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Airline codes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070304092037/http://icaodsu.openface.ca/documentItemView.ch2?ID=9403 to http://icaodsu.openface.ca/documentItemView.ch2?ID=9403
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)