Talk:Amadeus IT Group

message: I think this page was written by a company representative and is biased. For example, these statements look subjective:
Amadeus tagline, "Your technology partner", reflects the approach they take towards their customers. They focus on building and maintaining mutually beneficial long-term relationships.
Amadeus' greatest strength is its ability to form successful mutually-beneficial partnerships with its customers. By working effectively with those immersed in the business of travel and tourism, the company has been able to design winning solutions for travel booking and travel management. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.53.151 (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely agree. I'm tagging this page until it's solved. Oskilian 06:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No doubt about it. In fact, at one point they even use the word "Our" when describing the company. Someone needs to clean this up. Shame on you Amadeus. 69.237.180.158 17:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it hasn't. It's still blatently advertising copy - and it's badly written and edited. This page is a disgrace, and does nothing but tarnish Amadeus's (note the use of the apostrophe, which is something the writer doesn't) reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian64~enwiki (talk • contribs) 08:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article reads directly like an advert, it'll either need a complete rewrite or deleted altogether. Rayward 15:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: marked this for speedy deleteRayward 15:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased

message: I agree with previous posters in that this is nothing but a large ad for the Amadeus group.  I think it should be totally removed and some of the information put in a page for Amadeus CRS, similar to Galileo CRS and Worldspan etc.  I've tried to trim it down a bit, but even the title does not match what the article would become. Suggestions please.--Dmol 19:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason the name of the article is called Amadeus IT Group is because the group in question is called Amadeus IT Group, thank you for not calling it CRS... You really don't need to impose your ignorance to everybody — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.30.139.131 (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest moving to page for CRS. (Central Reservation System) 

message: I have trimmed this article down considerably, and I think it is enough to justify removing the advertisement tag.  Most of the info had been pure promotional spam, and much of it has now been moved to the new page for Amadeus CRS where it belongs.--Dmol 14:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed ad tag. 

message: I moved the essential parts from the CRS to Amadeus CRS which should end up similar to Sabre CRS. This page Amadeus IT Group should look like Sabre Holdings, the holding company. Mion 02:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  moving 

message: I've put the ad tag back in, as it is nothing but an advertisment for Amadeus.  The last edits were from a user on behalf of Amadeus. (At least they're honest).  But not sure we even need an article on this, as the CRS page should cover most of the information on this page. Seriously trim and make NPOV - or delete article completly.--Dmol (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replaced ad tag 22May08 

message: "Today, through Amadeus, 90,274 travel agency locations and 29,663 airline sales offices around the world are able to make bookings with:
* 490 airlines. 
* 77,000 hotel properties, 248 hotel chains
* 22 car rental companies, serving over 36,000 locations 
* 106 rail providers
* 200 tour operators
* 82 insurance providers in 50 countries
* Other travel provider groups (ferry, cruise) 
"Amadeus has subscribers in 217 markets (i.e. countries) worldwide; covering these different markets by delivering localized solutions for marketing, customer services and support through a network of over 65 Amadeus Commercial Organizations(ACOs)."
--Dmol (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I do not understand, these are only facts, not an ad. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, so I do not see why figures should not be part of it. With the exception of "over 65" which is nonsense, I see no ad there. Can you clarify? Vincent Lextrait (talk) 05:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I think there was a reasonable amount of time to debate the issue. As no reason was supplied, I restore the article to its original version, removing the "over" word from the original language. Vincent Lextrait (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ad information removed.  Left here as basis for rewrite. 

message: Please insert here any comment justifying to keep the advert tag. I have tried to remove all tracks of superlative wording in the article. To my knowledge there is nothing left. I'll wait for comments before removing the tag. Vincent Lextrait (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of comment objecting this, I remove the tag. Vincent Lextrait (talk) 10:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I disagree. Edits have been done since that discussion (see above), so a new discussion needs to take place. Vincent Lextrait (talk) 11:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  advert tag 

message: I am not going to repeat myself ad nauseum. I and at least three other editors agreed with the inclusion of the ad tag. See above.--Dmol (talk) 11:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I disagree. Edits have been done since that discussion (see above), so a new discussion needs to take place. Vincent Lextrait (talk) 11:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Advert tag once more

message: I have made a request for indefinite semi-protection of the article. Let us see if it is granted. Vincent Lextrait (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, hope it gets protected.  As it stands, we're getting major changes from anons who were not involved in the discussion here.  The article needs a bit more tweaking to get back to top standard, but reverting to any one single previous edit will not do it.--Dmol (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The request was declined, based on the fact that it was not a significantly recurring problem, but I am going to reiterate given that the phenomenon keeps on happening. Vincent Lextrait (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indefinite semi-protection 

message: Is it appropriate to add the following:
=== Limitation of usefulness ===
"The Amadeus booking system does not always show the shortest/quickest/cheapest possible travel option. If a change of flights is necessary, then Amadeus will only show the options where the entire journey can be bought as a single ticket. E.g., as of 2014, since the airlines Norwegian and Alitalia are not partners, the shortest, quickest & cheapest option between Oslo and Palermo (changing flights in Roma, with manual transfer of any luggage) is not shown. Amadeus' best option, with an additional stop in Riga, is several hours longer and more expensive."
If the community knows of any flight search services that does indeed show the shortest/quickest options, I think it would be beneficial to reference them here. Does anyone know such an operator?
Bjornte (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for new section 

message: "The Amadeus booking system does not always show the shortest/quickest/cheapest possible travel option. If a change of flights is necessary, then Amadeus will only show the options where the entire journey can be bought as a single ticket. E.g., as of 2014, since the airlines Norwegian and Alitalia are not partners, the shortest, quickest & cheapest option between Oslo and Palermo (changing flights in Roma, with manual transfer of any luggage) is not shown. Amadeus' best option, with an additional stop in Riga, is several hours longer and more expensive."
If the community knows of any flight search services that does indeed show the shortest/quickest options, I think it would be beneficial to reference them here. Does anyone know such an operator?
Bjornte (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limitation of usefulness 

message: I request the Navitaire acquisition to be added to the list of Amadeus acquisition. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandre Bouthors (talk • contribs) 
: Can you provide a source for that edit? —  crh 23  (Talk) 20:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Marked as answered. OP has received a response and has not replied in two months. If discussion reactivates, a second edit request can be opened. Altamel (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested edit

message: * Information to be added or removed: Change subheading "Data breach" to "Vulnerability discovered" 
* Explanation of issue: Vulnerability better describes the nature of the issue, and is the word used most in press articles on the matter
* References supporting change: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulnerability_(computing) 
https://www.safetydetective.com/blog/major-security-breach-discovered-affecting-nearly-half-of-all-airline-travelers-worldwide/
https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/airlines/a25923137/hacker-airline-security-flaw/
Steve at Amadeus (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Some proposed changes

message: * Information to be added or removed: Add a sentence at the end of the paragraph to complete the information:  "Amadeus corrected the vulnerability on Jan 16, 2019 and reported that no data from travelers was disclosed."
* Explanation of issue: The entry as it stands now, does not give full information and explain that the vulnerability was corrected and that the potential impact initially reported was not the real impact.
* References supporting change: 
https://www.thesun.co.uk/travel/8217292/hackers-steal-seats-cancel-flights-major-security-breach/
Steve at Amadeus (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Some proposed changes

message: # The subheading was changed per 's suggestion.
# The COI editor is asked to provide additional sources for the "fixed" claim.
Regards,  Spintendo  20:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 8-FEB-2019

message: This small ravel service company is not independently notable  , but it could be mentioned here.,  DGG ( talk ) 22:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose, on the grounds that references support independent notablity and a that merge would unbalance this page. Klbrain (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge of [[Navitaire]]