Talk:Iberia (airline)

message: Don't know about the others but BCN is not a focus city for them at all. They only fly to Madrid and Heathrow form BCN and if two flights make it a focus city... I've removed it. --62.57.161.79 (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: BCN is a operational focus city for the Iberia brand due to the Iberia Regional services operated by Air Nostrum. --84.156.68.95 (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus Cities 

message: I have removed:
*An Airbus 320 en route Madrid-Dublin reported a fire in the back of the aircraft and made an emergency landing on May 03, 2006 late afternoon. Passenger were evacuated using the emergency chutes
This kind of thing is relatively common and does not need to be reported here I feel. Anyone disagree just leave me a message! --GoAround 19:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, go around. I think the Madrid-Dublin fire was an incident and not an accident.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karljoos (talk • contribs) 22:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incidents 

message: The history section has been spun-out into "History of Iberia Airlines" to help with readability and concentrate the main article onto the current aspects of the company. This "history" page also includes significant incidents and accidents. Please help out by expanding the article and feel free to raise any recommendations, omissions or objections → friedfish 11:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History sub-articled 

message: That list currently included in the article looks to be a little far-fetched. I'm pretty sure none of those routes have been announced or confirmed; it's all speculation, or possibly a wishlist. I think it should go! Jasepl (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Destinations 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Iberiaa3-1-.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: I believe that the 'Industry Ratings' section needs to be carefully amended, as it is beneath the standards of encyclopedic writing. It's a bunch of opinions that are either unsourced, or that brazenly distort the facts to reflect bias against Iberia. I welcome other people's opinions. Here's what I disagree with:
Suffering from more customer complaints than any other full-service carrier in Europe..."
Can you provide proof of this? What is your source? Surely not what you go on to mention below.
Iberia has developed a negative overall brand image from the general public and a reputation for poor customer service. You cannot make such a claim, period. You just don't have proper sources and this is biased opinion. 
In 2011, reflecting very low customer satisfaction ratings, Iberia was ranked #10 in a Business Insider poll for The 10 Worst Airlines in the World.[16]" This very survey states that Iberia's overall rating, according to Zagat, falls between the 10-15 mark described as 'fair to good'. You do not ONCE mention Iberia's 'industry rating' as you call it with such adjectives, instead using words like 'poor' which are in the lowest descriptor (and which Iberia in not in). It is, additionally, utter rubish to depict Iberia as the world's 10th worst airline. 
Also, passengers rated Iberia a mere 3.3 out of 10 on Skytrax's website, depicting its services as poor.[17] " I see a 4/10 overall score under passengers' comments, I don't know here you got the 3.3 number from. But the personal rating of 696 English speaking customers in a UK website hardly counts to depict an major airline's services as poor, given that millions have flown Iberia. I would accept something like 'passengers on the UK airline review site Skytrax' or something that quantifies your statement better. 
It is also not a Skytrax Quality Approved airline " Again very biased writing, especially since Skytrax has given Iberia a 3-star ranking, awarded to 'airlines delivering a fair Quality performance, but with greater levels of inconsistency'. So again you would need to use words as 'fair' and not 'poor' quality to make this part of the article reflect reputable sources. Your descriptions rather match 2 or 1 star rated airlines, as a 3 star airline is not a bad rating at all, more middle of the line. I do not see a 3 star rating spun as a badge of shame for other other 3-star airlines such as Air Canada, Icelandair, American Airlines, etc which to me suggests a personal unbiased attack on Iberia.
especially given that between 2007 and 2012, Skytrax's rating for Iberia's cabin crews has fluctuated between two and three stars, well below the ratings of other European airlines' cabin crews.
What's your source? What's the rating for 'other' European airlines cabin crew? Again biased unsourced opinions.
Please amend this section, or I will reword it. Iberia actually holds a solid reputation with many people, as one of the world's oldest operating airlines and the market leader between Latin America and Europe. I have had excellent experiences w them always, including a snow-in at JFK where Iberia set us up in a hotel for the night and the next morning I saw the same American Airlines passengers who were were stranded overnight and slept at the airport. Of course this doesn't mean anything so I wouldn't put this as general facts in Wikpiedia. I ask you to do the same and remove opinions that are baseless, or based on altered facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emanuel Kingsley (talk • contribs) 09:44, 15 December 2012
:I have removed the Skytrax stuff, it is not a particularly reliable source for opinions and ratings per old discussions at the airlines project. MilborneOne (talk) 09:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Industry Ratings 

message: I removed the Bibliography section as it doesnt relate to any of the references used, this removal has been challenged. Perhaps User:Cuentaprueba10 why we should make an exception on this one article. They may have been more appropriate under further reading but not being in English it doesnt help the reader. MilborneOne (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliography

message: The article needs to be restructured but retaining ALL the current pictures. --Cuentaprueba10 (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Try to see the article in the mobile version and you will see for yourself. All the pictures appear outside the text and is currently impossible to place them in the correct place in the two versions, pc and mobile.--Cuentaprueba10 (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs to be restructured 

message: YSSYguy doesn't respect the previous editions of the article, doesn't put his proposals on the talk. Destroys the previous contributions, such as quotes, images and the fleet table in the brand colors.--87.218.80.49 (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have semi-protected the article for the moment to encourage discussion, you need to work out on this page what the issues are rather than edit war, thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP cannot talk about disruptive editing when they were warring too. Separately, I think the behvaiour of both warring editors warrants full protection.--Jetstreamer  16:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: When the version of YSSYguy stays, it must have been a coincidence. The fleet table is now without the brand colours by the way--87.218.80.49 (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not endorsing anyone's version. I'm just saying there are two warring editors, not just you. That's why full protection is required. So , can you please full protect the article?--Jetstreamer  16:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobodys version "stays" the article is protected as it is when I noticed the issue, at the moment I will leave it at semi as User:YSSYguy is an experienced editor and knows the trouble it would cause if he continued to make changes related to the dispute. This allows the majority of others to continue to edit the article outside of the dispute. MilborneOne (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disruptive editions by YSSYguy 

message: "Cabo" and "Juby" is Cape Juby, one place, please insert the link. Thanks.--87.218.80.49 (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks--Jetstreamer  19:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cape Juby 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Iberia (airline). 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://atwonline.com/airports-routes/iberia-remodels-t4-lounge-madrid-airport
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225084512/http://grupo.iberia.es/portal/site/grupoiberia/menuitem.5dcd178a7f0a73be19736c10d21061ca to http://grupo.iberia.es/portal/site/grupoiberia/menuitem.5dcd178a7f0a73be19736c10d21061ca
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040520184341/http://www.iberia.com/ to http://www.iberia.com/
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) 20:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This table includes SNCASE SE.161 Languedoc 1952 1960 , however the article for the Languedoc only lists Aviaco as an operator.Darci (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the entry sourced here? If not, mark it as unsourced. It doesn't matter what other articles say. Articles do not support each other, they are supported by reliable sources each.--Jetstreamer  22:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re:  Fleet Development