Talk:Lufthansa/Archive 1

message: What is this man opening the door on the runway thing!? This isn't a serious incident. I think it should be removed. If this kind of thing qualifies you could list hundreds of incidents for all major airlines. newkai 02:56, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I think that information looks very strange in the article. I have removed the paragraph entirely - Adrian Pingstone 19:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sliding Man 

message: Miles & More should be merged into the Lufthansa article, and its other participants should have a note about it in their pages. The program isn't noteworthy enough to need its own article. Dbinder 23:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Miles & More

message: It says in the first paragraph that Lufthansa means "flying swan". It doesn't. 
As far as I know, there is a Sanskrit word - "Hamsa", which means swan. In German however, the only meaning I can conceive here is in connection with the Hanseatic League, as is written in the History-section.
When I tried to edit this, it was changed back, so maybe someone else needs to make a change.
:I changed the "German translation" sentence. In my opinion the reference to the swan is not correct, the bird in the company logo and on the aircraft tails is a crane. MikeZ 07:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The German cognate to "hamsa", btw, is "Gans" (goose). 惑乱 分からん 17:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would also be interested to know about it. Which view is more authentic, Flying Swan or Air + 'another company name'? Anyone has any authentic information about this? Also, if me or you start an airlines company today, how will we name that? Air Yamaha, Air Google, Air Microsoft, or something like Flying Swan or White Goose. What makes more sense? Also, is there any confirmation anywhere if the author who designed their logo, indeed made a crane, and not a swan? Sobuj 18:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Flying Swan?

message: Can someone clean these up because, though at first they may not appear excessive, im worried about the fleet sections, because somehow I think most pages about the fleet types exist. Thanks for your help DannyM 12:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redlinks 

message: Berlin Tegel is definitly not a "focus city" in Lufthansa's route network. The only international routes are BRU and CDG. There are more international routes from Cologne!
I´d say Stuttgart Airport is a secondery hub of Lufthansa! Of course it´s a smaller focus city than Dusseldorf Airport, but it´s a bit larger than Hamburg Airport because of more frequencies! Dagadt
*This is not true. Hamburg has recently gained in importance for Lufthansa. It was the first airport to get the betterfly-fare concept with many new European destinations added at the same time. Nowadays, Hamburg even has unique destinations served by Lufthansa from no other airport, e.g. Bergen, Rønne, Bastia as well as Saarmelleek and Valencia which are only served from Düsseldorf also. Stuttgart, otoh, is not even close to a secondary hub nor is it a focus city, as it is mostly served by smaller aircraft with much less frequencies than Hamburg. FMB 17:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus cities / secondary hubs 

message: Can anyone give a reference to the BBJ that is in LH's fleet? I have looked for one and can only find the service operated by Privatair on behalf of LH. Which is duly noted in the Privatair entry. skyskraper 14:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the PrivatAir jet is not so much a plane in their inventory but a service they offer ... --- C. Deelmann 15:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BBJ

message: In the history section, it seems to list many, many instances of different planes being purchased. Do all of these purchases need to be listed? I understand certain purchases may be historic, but if so, maybe it should be explained why it is important? (e.g. Allowed flights across Atlantic, etc.) Other examples seem to be listed just for the sake of listing.Gittinsj 01:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fleets in History Section

message: I've deleted Zürich Airport as a Lufthansa hub, for only SWISS uses it as a hub and although it is owned by Lufthansa it is run independently. Moreover, the section about Zürich becoming Lufthansa's third hub is mere speculation, as there have been made no official remarks about Lufthansa dropping the SWISS brand in favor of its own, nor LH offering flights out of ZRH to non-German destinations  and therefore being qualified to be called a hub. FMB 17:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to venture a guess as to why ZRH was listed in the first place: on LH's website, they have on their information page listed as "Our hubs in Frankfurt, Munich, and Zürich ()". I'm guessing thats why somebody listed it in the first place. I was not the one who listed it, but I'm guessing this could be the reason why it was listed. Any thoughts? Neo16287 (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ZRH is a secondary hub. Basketballoneten 18:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zürich Airport 

message: The 727 cargo plane lost in 1979 was not part of the LH fleet and - as far as I know - not operated or maintained by LH personnel. I am not sure if it should be listed here.--Kermecke 06:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accidents 

message: How is Lufthansa "the" German flag carrier? It is privately-owned, the German state has sold all or almost all of its shares. Sure, it carries the German flag on its planes, but so do Air Berlin and dba. There's nothing exclusive about that.
Adhominem 09:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look up Flag Carrier. It sums it up pretty much FMB 19:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The" Flag Carrier? 

message: There's two lists in the article with accidents/incidents, with many of the items being listed in both of them. As the Incidents lists is more complete I am renaming it to "Accidents and incidents". The Accidents list will be deleted and any information not in the Incidents list will be copied. Ma.rkus.nl (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accident vs Incident 

message: In the current Lufthansa magazine you can see on the route map that the airline serves Rio de Janeiro from Hamburg and Piestany (SLovakia) from Berlin. I never heard about that and you can´t buy these flights on lufthansa.com. Does anyone knows more ybout that? Dagadt (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destinations 

message: I do have two concerns with this sentence. First, no sources are given. Second, what other airlines should Hitler and his Nazi henchmen use? British Airways? Even if sources can be found to back up those claims ("always favorite"), that still doesn't tell a thing about the airline and should therefore be deleted from the article. Any second thoughts from someone? Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for information: This claim was only recently added by an anonymous user, IP 216.170.232.106, from Madison, Wisconsin, USA, on November 29, 2007.  MikeZ (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I say in the interest of fair play we give him 5 days to source it, and then if it isn't sourced, we pull it. It is true, who else would they fly? But is there really a need for that? Neo16287 (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I dont think if it was sourced it should be included as it is not really notable enough for inclusion, bit like saying his favourite country is Germany! MilborneOne (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim in article, that Lufthansa was always Hitler's favorite airline? So, what? 

message: Is it just me, or are there too many pictures on the right side of the page.  I don't think there should be that many pictures clustered together one after another.  Not only does it make the fleet table smaller, it makes the article longer and some pictures, I believe, can be removed or moved.  Does anyone have any other thoughts?--Golich17 (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures On Right Side 

message: look:  --92.113.10.111 (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  economics related 

message: Does anybody object to my expanding on the section regarding cabin service as similar to other airline articles? Neo16287 (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead. Planenut (talk) 00:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cabin Info

message: According to this English article it is planned to retire the B747-400 in 2010 to 2012. According to the German article some newer B747-400 will receive PTV screens (and probably new first class interior?) and remain in service until most of the ordered A380 and B747-8 are delivered. (I guess that's longer than 2012, or would they really refurbish a plane only for 3 or 4 years more service?) --84.115.129.76 (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  B747-400 retirement or refurbishment? 

message: Any objections the modification of fleet tables to include seating configuration as similar to other airline articles? Planenut (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fleet Info 

message: I wonder - Are the offices of the Lufthansa CEO and executives in Cologne or Frankfurt? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lufthansa executive offices

message: First, sorry my poor English. I wrote this text, but User:Jasepl not able to accept my poor English and reverting my edit:  
* Lufthansa strike by pilots will beginning tomorrow, 2010-02-22, due to LH pilots want job protection from those pilots from acquired subsidiries.http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-21/lufthansa-offers-job-security-to-lure-pilots-to-talks-fas-says.html
Can you help rewriting it?  Thanks! --B767-500 (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesnt sound particularly notable, strikes are not uncommon in airlines. If it has a notable long term effect on the airline or its operations then it can be looked at again. MilborneOne (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The strike has been called off for now anyway. Lars T. (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lufthansa strike 2010 -- Can you help with my poor English? 

message: Surely London, Brussels and Milan are not Lufthansa Hubs? There are only a couple of Lufthansa flights on each of them...
:Hello! Yes, your are correct those cities are not hubs of Lufthansa itself , but of companies owned by Lufthansa AG. For Example Milan is a Hub for Lufthansa Italia and Brussels a hub of Brussels Airlines . This article discusses both the airline and the company which owns those airlines.--@Discover10 21:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hubs 

message: I feel this part is not clearly described (the link with the Luftwaffe in the pre-war period, the company serving mainly military ends during the war, the use of forced labor, the classification as a Nazi company by the Allies in 1945 leading to an effective arrest of activities and the liquidation in 1951). I unfortunately have no source but the French and German articles. Maybe adding a subsection "1940s–1950s: war and post-war years" could be an invitation to improvement ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.86.150.40 (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, perhaps it may be better to have an article on the pre-1950s Deutsche Luft Hansa which can expand better on the history before is was re-formed in the late 1950s. MilborneOne (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History before, during and after WWII 

message: Can anyone identify this Lufthansa aircraft (type) from 1927? Thanks, /Urbourbo (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Swedish text on the image states that it's an Albatros L 73. That article has the photo and states that it was taken at the opening of Stettin Airstrip. Mjroots (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unidentified aircraft 

message: I found this corporate page about Lufthansa Group's activities in Africa:
* http://afrika.lufthansa.com/en/
* http://konzern.lufthansa.com/en/themen/africa.html
* http://afrika.lufthansa.com/de.html (German)
WhisperToMe (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lufthansa Group in Africa

message: Luft Hansa and Lufthansa are two separate entities, in much the same way as the old Alitalia and the new Alitalia are. Therefore I propose that this article is split into two, with all info relevant to the previous incarnation of Luft Hansa being moved to that article. Mjroots (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Agree per my earler comment above from July 2010. MilborneOne (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

text: *Agree. I'm turning in after this, g'night~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 19:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

text: *Agree also! --Boeing747-412 (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

text: *I have to agree as well. Even the article itself says that the "new" Lufthansa shares nothing but the name with the "old" one, so there is no reason to have this in the same article. Regards SoWhy 22:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

text: New article at Deutsche Luft Hansa, any help with content and links welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Split

message: I think it could be an idea to make an own page for Lufhansa Group/Aviation Group. As I understand Lufthansa German Airlines are a subsidiary. Not a parent company for all the subsidiaries. I would like to do it, but not without an approval.
Jortseren (talk) 10:46, 2 MARS 2011 (UTC)
I do agree as for example Air France-KLM and International Airlines Group have separate pages, so Lufthansa Group needs one, however, if someone were not to approve it and then some people disagree it would cause problems. What suprises me is that no-one has replied to this since 2-March! --MJLRGS (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Lufthansa Group

message: Two places in the Alliances|Commercial section have incomplete dates:
"On December 14 Lufthansa and American low-cost airline Jetblue...
...In November, Lufthansa and Austrian..."
Somebody please add the year to these 2 occurences. Casey (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accurate dates needed 

message: I have protected the article from change due to an ongoing content dispute, can you come to some consensus on this page please. MilborneOne (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already two weeks now, and no discussion so far. Is the article protection still needed? AdAstra reloaded (talk) 09:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, is there any chance the protection might be lifted again? There does not seem to be any significant ongoing discussion about the alledged content dispute. AdAstra reloaded (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Unprotected on the grounds that with no talk page discussion parties accept the status quo per WP:SILENCE 19:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Protected

message: Noticed wrong wikilink format in Fleet History (Airbus A340-300) is: Airbus A340-300| the | shall be removed. thx and brgds.
CeruttiPaolo (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from CeruttiPaolo, 4 September 2011 

message: This source may be useful for the Corporate affairs and identity section, in particular subsidiaries.
For example Eurowings is marked as owned 100% by Deutsche Lufhtansa AG over here.
CeruttiPaolo (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added it next to Eurowings; hope this is what you wanted! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from CeruttiPaolo, 4 September 2011 

message: On the fleet table please can you change the link from Airbus A320 Neo to Airbus A320neo. On this section of the A320 page its branded as A320neo not A320 Neo. This is also the same on this link from the Airbus website.
The below airlines also have it like this
* Air Asia
* American Airlines
* Cebu Pacific
* GoAir
* LAN Airlines
* IndiGo
* JetBlue
* Frontier Airlines
Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: , what about the A321 neo? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I didnt notice, sorry yes please can you do the A321neo as well? Thanks. --JetBlast (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks :-) --JetBlast (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from JetBlast, 12 September 2011 

message: Hi, Do we really need a list of the A380 routes? At the end of the day its just another aircraft. We dont have a list of routes for the 747-400 etc. --JetBlast (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion you are right. But as Seat configurations of the Airbus A380 is an article of its own, it looks ok to give the routes on the airline article, as the A380 currently seems to be such an iconic aircraft (like the Concorde). AdAstra reloaded (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Not needed it is no more notable then any other aircraft, most of the A380 section could also be trimmed and added to the history section. MilborneOne (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Tagging onto what MilborneOne said i also this the Aircraft Naming Conventions section about the A380 should be trimmed. Some parts of the article makes it sound like a plane spotting site. --JetBlast (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airbus A380 Routes 

message: Add the following to Accidents and Incidents/Fatal  
*26 July 1979: a Lufthansa cargo Boeing 707-330C registration D-ABUY operating flight 527 from Rio de Janeiro-Galeão to Frankfurt via Dakar collided with a mountain 5 minutes after take-off from Galeão. The crew of 3 died.
(Brunoptsem (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This incident is already included in the article. Are you proposing to rewrite the paragraph with your version? If so, please explain why. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Brunoptsem, 22 September 2011 

message: LH also have upto 8 of these Combi variants in their fleet, so thats 22 744 and 8 744M, please update list with information accordingly.Mustangmanxxx (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source for this ? --Denniss (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Very difficult to find reliable sources for this as most references dont bother to note that the aircraft is a combi. Original research indicates that D-ABTA, B. C, D, E, F are combis but I created the list by looking at the pictures to see if they have the cargo door which I am afraid is original research and not allowed.. In the end it may not be that notable. MilborneOne (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Currently LH has NO 744M, and afaik NEVER had any. LH Cargo operated the 742 freighter, but they have been replaced by a fleet of MD11 and 777F. --C. Deelmann (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you sure they never had any, at least those listed in my reply from eighteen months ago had the combi doors fitted, even if they were not used. MilborneOne (talk) 10:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  747-400M missing 

message: The Brand history section is a matter of debate. The information present right now has a reference page cited to Lufthansa's page which has no information for the logo design and brand history.
As such, the information being transmitted is incorrect.
I urge the editors to erase this immediately. DBSSURFER (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because the website was changed (but not improved information-wise). Please do not try to get the brand history information removed beause you can't install your self-made brand history. --Denniss (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

text: I've just given my reasons as to why I'm sure that the Hansa in Lufthansa comes from the Hanseatic Leage here. Once again, I can assure you that for a native German speaker (especially one with any affiliation with Hamburg or another Northern German city), there is just no doubt were the term Hansa comes from. Please note that Lufthansa indeed had that link to Hamburg. AdAstra reloaded (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brand History without reference 

message: Please replace reference 25 with archived copy at http://web.archive.org/web/20091010130610/http://konzern.lufthansa.com/en/html/ueber_uns/geschichte/chronik/index.html --Denniss (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Skier Dude (talk) 05:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  reference replacement 

message: On the codeshare section, Turkish and Asiana Airlines should be remnoved from the list as LH and both of the carriers are members Star Alliance and the sentence already mentions "besides Star Alliance members. Snoozlepet (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Snoozlepet, 30 September 2011 

message: Hi. under Commercial near the bottom, is puts Iberia as Iberia Airlines. The Airline is not called Iberia Airlines its simply called Iberia. Please can this be corrected. Also please can you make the link like this: Iberia - Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 11:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: MilborneOne (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Request from JetBlast 5 October 2011 

message: Could someone make the thumbs smaller - the images block parts of the table and make it unreadable. BadaBoom (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: They look fine to me. What browser, screen size, etc., are you using? I'm using Safari 5.1.7 on a 11″ MacBook Air with a screen resolution of 1280 × 800. David1217 What I've done 16:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Also for me the images & table look both fine and perfetcly readable: Safari 6.0.1 on 13″ MacBook with 1280 × 800 resolution. --CeruttiPaolo (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

text: The images use the default size which if you dont like you can adjust in the "My preferences/Appearance" tabs. MilborneOne (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed a couple the other day as we seem to have lots in this article. --JetBlast (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images in the Fleet section 

message: Hi, Why does LHT redirect here please? --JetBlast (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea it is not a TLA one would associate with the airline as far as I can see. MilborneOne (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well i am glad its not me, i thought i had missed something. Maybe we can look at sending LHT somewhere else? --JetBlast (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  LHT Redirect? 

message: Really? Where is this officially used? --FoxyOrange (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: All over the "offical" Lufthansa website for example at http://www.lufthansagroup.com/en/service/contact.html MilborneOne (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, now I see. Thanks for that. --FoxyOrange (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just once again checked, and I have come to the conclusion that Lufthansa German Airlines is only rarely used, and always together/as a synonyme with the official Deutsche Lufthansa AG. I have amended the lead section accordingly.--FoxyOrange (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Lufthansa German Airlines" 

message: A quick search in a source that I often use mentions that the company was founded in 1926. Notwithstanding, the history of the company is also worth reading. A discussion similar to the one presented in the article is followed. To me, the current company was founded in the mid fifties, although the company traces its roots back to the mid-twenties.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It would appear that the current airline was formed in the 1950s but takes up a history of the brand that goes back to the 1920s. As we already have an article on the earlier Luft Hansa it may be better to put a 1953 start date with a note similar to the suggested by FoxyOrange further up. MilborneOne (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I didnt know that! In my opinion Deutsche Luft Hansa should have a start date in the 1920's and Lufthansa to be 1953. --JetBlast (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: More sources to be considered

message: In the infobox, there is a long list of presumed Lufthansa subsidiaries. Per the respective Wikipedia article, this term defines "a company that is completely or partly owned and partly or wholly controlled by another company that owns more than half of the subsidiary's stock." Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I guess only those companies should be listed, in which Lufthansa indeed holds a majority of the shares?! Surely, JetBlue Airways and Luxair are not considered Lufthansa subsidiaries? Also, Lufthansa Technik and LSG Sky Chefs (and maybe others?) should be listed there, as these are wholly owned (and btw Lufthansa Technik is abbrevated LHT, which seems to solve the above "mystery of the redirect".) Cheers, --FoxyOrange (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: JetBlue Airways and Luxair are not, they are just shareholders you are correct. I removed some hubs from other airlines from the info box before. --JetBlast (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: For the hubs, Lufthansa's website lists Vienna and Zurich as hubs for the airlines but in reality they are not as LH fly to 4 destinations from those cities. Vienna is a hub for Austrian Airlines and Zurich is a hub for Swiss International Air Lines (in which both are subisidiaries owned by Lufthansa). This information is about the airline itself not the parent company. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I performed an update from the last Lufthansa Financial report. --CeruttiPaolo (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsidiaries 

message: Hi, A while back I removed some images from the article. All of them where just images of aircraft. Pretty much the same as others in the article. I removed them because they are just placed in the article to take up empty space and being decorative. For users who have a slower internet connection these type of images make the article load slower, not everyone in the world has high speed broadband. Also users with smaller screens, it can mess up how the article is displayed. I really don't see the point in having 8 Lufthansa aircraft all in the same area, they all pretty much look the same. The user WorldTraveller101 reverted this and i have reverted back. Judging from his past activity on 2 accounts he just keeps edit waring and doesn't bother with talk pages. He just keeps reverting to get his own way. So I wanted to see what others thought? Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, I don't see the need of placing an image for every aircraft in the fleet. I'd prefer showing images of long-haul aircraft, but that's just my likening. Three pictures are enough, that's for sure.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, following the removal of these images, the article now lacks visual identification for the Airbus A340-600 (of which Lufthansa is the largest operator) and the Boeing 747-8 (of which Lufthansa so far is the only operator of the passenger version). Concerning these two types, I think images are indeed needed (as long as there are images in a sufficient quality, of course). I would even go as far as to claim that it should be favorable to have one image of any aircraft type that is/was operated by an airline for a considerable amount of time. Therefore, photos of the Airbus A300, Airbus A310, Boeing 737-100/200, a Boeing 747-100/200 and possibly others in Lufthansa colors should be included, as Lufthansa operated considerable numbers of these types, which clearly shows a significance for the aviation industry. Adding such images is not just decoration, but informative (the article must not be slanted towards current aircraft types, as notability is not temporary). Of course, when the article gets too long, certain content might be reorganized at something like History of Lufthansa, but in my opinion article lenth should not be used as an argument against adding images. On the other hand, currently there are images of Air Dolomiti, Air Malta and Lufthansa Cityline aircraft in the Lufthansa article. Indeed, these seem to be purely decorative and therefore should be removed. As a side note, I am much more concerned about the large number of aircraft images added to some airport articles, which do not seem to add any value to the article (as they do not contain any information about the airport itself). It is by no means favorable to add an image of any airline that serves a certain airport (take Frankfurt Airport as an example). --FoxyOrange (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I did remove a poor quality 747-8 image. Any aircraft that is unusual or not very common should be on i agree but not endless images of 737, A320's 747's etc. There are a few old aircraft images already in the article. --JetBlast (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fleet images 

message: There is an ongoing dispute over the founding date of Lufthansa. See RFC-section at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Germany#Request_for_comments_concerning_the_year_Lufthansa_was_founded_in to add your comments. GermanJoe (talk) 08:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comments concerning the year [[Lufthansa]] was founded in 

message: Hi all, I just went through the "Hijackings" list, flagging all incidents which only have a single reference, an entry at the Aviation Safety Network. As this website is essentially user-generated, other sources to back the ASN info are needed. Unfortunately, I did not succeed in finding anything these incidents in any other sources during a quick search. Therefore, these (minor) hijackings might be regarded non-notable as well. To be fair, I have to add that I believe that I added those to the Lufthansa article myself some time ago.--FoxyOrange (talk) 08:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better sources needed for several Lufthansa hijackings 

message: I've just reverted an edit by which the lead statement "Lufthansa is the flag carrier of Germany" was removed. I feel that this should be discussed first (per WP:BRD). According to Wikipedia, a flag carrier "enjoys preferential rights or privileges accorded by the government for international operations." Is this still true? If so, what are Lufthansa's privileges? In any case, please note that the ownership status (whether being state or privately owned) is irrelevant here. Best regards--FoxyOrange (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "German flag-carrier Lufthansa appears to have cancelled orders for three Airbus A380s." --IIIraute (talk) 12:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but is this really sufficient? I mean, are we really listing airlines as "flag carriers" simply because a magazine has called them this way? This source is also used at the flag carrier article to justify Lufthansa being listed as such, but come to think of it, all we can extract is that "even though not being state-owned anymore, Lufthansa is still frequently identified as German flag carrier." The question remains: What are the alleged "preferential rights or privileges"?--FoxyOrange (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like WP:OR to me. There are literally hundreds of WP:RS describing Lufthansa as the "flag carrier", "national carrier", or "national airline" of Germany. --IIIraute (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Having recalled that previous argument between me and User:IIIraute, I once again explained the matter using a footnote. Cheers--FoxyOrange (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the problem is your definition of the term flag carrier ⇒ "an airline that is or was owned by a government, often with the name of the country in its name", like "Deutsche Lufthansa AG", for example. (Definition of flag carrier noun from the  Cambridge Business English Dictionary  © Cambridge University Press)  --IIIraute (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, since I had been the editor who restored the "Lufthansa is the flag carrier of Germany" bit, the burden was on me to find a reference for this statement. Note: It's indeed no problem to find a source calling Lufthansa "the German flag carrier", but in order to prove that Lufthansa is the German flag carrier, I encountered the question: "What makes an airline a flag carrier, after all?" I was unsure whether I should follow the Wikipedia definition (flag carrier=privileged airline) or if I should simply follow "flag carrier= airline called as such". Similar to the question "When was Lufthansa founded", there is no simple answer (or rather, the answer is a matter of debate), which is why I added an explanatory note.--FoxyOrange (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: An explanatory note is fine with me, I actually like them a lot. Nevertheless, the one you added has no sources.--Jetstreamer  18:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that. I placed two refs directly behind the footnote (one for "today, Lufthansa is (still) called flag carrier" and one for "until 1994, Lufthansa was the German flag carrier, no doubt whatsoever"). Technical question: How do I put refs inside footnotes? Is this possible at all?--FoxyOrange (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done it for you. Please check that that is what you wanted. You may practise with the other note inside the infobox --Jetstreamer  20:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again; now I'm feeling somewhat silly because there hasn't been any problem putting refs into footnotes. For the past half year, I had somehow been under the impression this wouldn't work. How strange.--FoxyOrange (talk) 07:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the designation "flag carrier" still correct?