Template talk:Airlines of China

message: As mentioned on my talk page, in this edit I removed all of the Hong Kong and Macau airlines. Whilst Hong Kong and Macau are part of the PRC, they both have their own civil aviation authoritys with oversight for their SAR, which includes airline licencing and CoA oversight. Hence, they should not be regarded simply as Airlines of the PRC, but as Airlines of their respective SAR, which means they get their own template. Comments? --Russavia 21:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hong Kong and Macau air regulation is considered as a special kind of domestic traffic.  The regulating authorities are separate from the other civil authorities, but still answer to the central government.  Foreign airlines that want to register an aircraft to Hong Kong need special permission of the central government. HK/MO air traffic is not at all independent.  Plus, the ownership of HK/MO airlines can almost always be tracked back to state-owned PRC companies.  Just lump it all together. SchmuckyTheCat 21:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: A sub-entity getting its own template dosent mean the main entity must exclude them. A template on the countries of Eastern Europe does not mean all countries of Eastern Europe are exluded from a template for European countries. Templates are meant to assist in navigation, and not used to reflect some kind of a geopolitical setup.--Huaiwei 11:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have started comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines#Airlines_of_the_People.27s_Republic_of_China. It might be more useful there in order to get concensus on all airline templates to get them standardised across the board. --Russavia 05:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems no response there, so I response here. I agree with Russavia, only airlines which are given certification to fly by the CAAC should be included. Airlines in Hong Kong do not obtain cert from CAAC. Flight between China and Hong Kong are not just "special domastic", they are International (Travel Between Hong Kong and Mainland China and China Travel Depot).  Central Governemnt's permission is not required for foreign airline to register to Hong Kong because it is not matter of national defense or diplomatic relations, as stated in the Basic Law of Hong Kong. Pointing out some airline companys outside China has shareholder from mainland China is not a sensible reason to support inclusion of those airline to be included in the China airline list. Most tram companies in Hong Kong can almost always be tracked back to French and Indian companies, but this would be ridiculous to use this to support a claim to include companies like Hong Kong Tramways in navigation box in Transportation in France. --Da Vynci (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  People's Republic of China, minus Hong Kong and Macau 

message: What do people think about breaking the “big 3” airlines into a separate section of the template? The concept of a Chinese “big 3” is well covered in reliable sources, see, for example , , . My concern is where to place Cathay Pacifc, since it appears that there was considerable debate about weather to include non-mainland airlines. Billhpike (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seperate section for big 3