Valea Cetății River (Sibiel)

I think it looks great! Danny 04:11 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Miles and miles of whitespace just bugs me - it makes a visual desert. The very simple justified table takes care of that. --mav

I can’t believe there’s no photo of the LAX sign – I’ll try to get one when I should be in LA next in May. Monucg 02:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a picture of the LAX sign when one enters off of Century Blvd. Flo

Probably a stupid question, but... what does the "X" stand for in "LAX"? Does it simply mean "International airport" and if yes, why is it "X" instead of "IA"?

LAX is the airport's three letter IATA identification code. see this Wikipedia article.

LA and LP

I have a question - I notice that all international airline listings include even direct destinations, but domestic ones do not. For instance, LAN lists Lima, Santiago and Buenos Aires, even though the last two are not nonstop. Under Southwest, though, I only see nonstop destinations. What's the reasoning?

This is how I understand WikiProject Airports. We list only direct destinations, non-stop or not. This means having the same flight number. However, one will NOT list a city if the route passes through a hub first, so that's what happens to "faux" direct flights, usually with a plane change. Examples are like UA 915 CDG-IAD-SFO, where there is a plane change in IAD. So the CDG article only lists IAD but not SFO because the route passes through a UA hub (IAD). Therefore, with the same reasoning, I removed EZE but not LIM from the LA 601 LAX-LIM-SCL-EZE because the hub is Santiago (LAN Airlines). I also removed GRU from the LP 605 LAX-LIM-GRU flight because the hub is Lima (LAN Peru). Elektrik Blue 82 18:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Would this mean, then, that all the Southwest Airlines destinations would count as well (i.e, a flight that went from LAX-ABQ-Amarillo, or something similar)? What constitutes a Southwest hub?

I have to admit I am not familiar with the business plan of Southwest. You better ask other Wikipedians for advise on this one. The only thing I know is they do not operate a hub-and-spoke system similar to other legacy carriers. Elektrik Blue 82 23:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I wouldn't remove references to direct destinations as long as they are not change-of-gauge flights. On the LAN flights you are staying in the same seat on the same airplane the whole time, not getting off one plane and on another.

There are flights where it is simply a "timetable-direct" flight, but there is a change of planes. Frankly, I have no idea how to tell whether the plane will change or not, sometimes the Yahoo! timetables indicate it, sometimes it doesn't. I guess the rule of thumb I am following here is that once the airplane touches down at a hub of the airline, then everything else will not be listed. Elektrik Blue 82 08:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If it is an international flight that does not change gauge, I would list it. What I believe we should not list are international flights that require a change of plane, or domestic "direct" flights that pass through an airline's hub and only incidentally happen to connect two points in a "direct" fashion. Direct flights that miss a hub, like AA's old AUS-HOU-LGA, should probably list both destinations. FCYTravis 02:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Incident Section

I don't understand why rather minor incidents like the jetBlue gear failure and the Air India tire blowout are being included. It is not as if we are including all the incidents through out LAX history where planes have run into each other and ripped holes in wings because of the tight infrastructure at the airport. Only deadly incidents or complete hull losses should be included

Did the Unabomber or some one else threaten to blow up a plane landing or taking off from LAX in June-July of ? year. And if so should that be included?

It was in the early 80's that a waitress was murdered at the old Terminal 2 building. I know because she was a friend of mine during my tenure with Continental Airline"s Contract Services. I first met her when she bought me coffee while I was waiting in line, she was a pretty hispanic woman who worked the small cafe on the upper floor of Terminal 2.

I never really got to know her as I had transfered to the Air Cargo facility in 1980. I read about her murder in the Los Angeles Times and was absolutely crushed, a male co-worker at the cafe was arrested a short time later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.56.62 (talk) 09:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering why PSA 182 is even included here. Merely being a destination in the middle of the flight doesn't mean it was an incident involving LAX....the crash happened on final approach to San Diego...100+ miles away...and had nothing to do with LAX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.208.182 (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

AVIANCA

I looked at Avianca's website and did not see LAX on the route map. Is this a planned route?

Avianca already flies the route, AV 48/49 BOG-LAX-BOG. Elektrik Blue 82 21:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Noise lawsuits

There used to be residential neighborhoods right up to the property line, on the north side. After a lawsuit, in (I believe) the 1960s or 1970s, the houses were bought up and the homes razed, forming a noise buffer zone. It looks bizarre to see the remaining streets, sidewalks, trees, and streetlamps with no homes! Maybe it is still that way; I haven't flown out of LAX since 1992, though. Hi

Runways

I don't know much about airports, but it seems to me that the length of LAX's runways (the longest? the longest in the US?) is significant because flights with serious malfunctions are redirected there (like the recent JetBlue flight).

'They're the longest runways in Southern California because they have to handle large widebody jets such as the 747 and later the A380. Starcity ai 02:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

LAX to LGA Direct Flights

• There are NO DIRECT flights on Delta from LAX to LGA! I have checked BOTH www.oag.com and www.delta.com and there are no direct flights to LGA on Delta. The Port Authority does not permit transcontinental flights to LGA due to noise limits and congestion. I live 10 minutes from LGA and the Delta counter there reconfirmed this when I inquired last week. Please visit http://www.delta.com/schedules/travel/reservations/flight_sched/index.jsp and search every Saturday from November 2006 and December 2006. THERE ARE NO DIRECT FLIGHTS! All flights connect in CVG. Delta's website is much more accurate than OAG. OAG is not 100% reliable. --XLR8TION 22:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • So I guess this flight doesn't really exist? DB (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There are direct flights on Saturdays, when the perimeter rule is void.

Flights from Los Angeles, CA to New York, NY LAX to LGA Saturday, 23 December, 2006

Select leg Flt From To Dpt Time Arr Time Mkt Carrier AC First Av/Au(Cap) Bus. Av/Au(Cap) Coach Av/Au(Cap) Lists

 1644  LAX  LGA  23DEC  1235P  23DEC  905P  DELTA  757

International flights

I know United Airlines has Terminal 6 as international arrivals center, but usually international flights occur from the Tom Bradley International Terminal (such as JAL, ANA and British Airways). Do you know if there are international arrival facilities at Terminal 2 (since Northwest Airlines operates a LAX-Tokyo Narita route)?

I'm also thinking why Alaska uses Terminal 3 for departures/domestic arrivals and Tom Bradley International Terminal for international arrivals.

Bigtop 23:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Mattfox22 10:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)I'm pretty sure there are international flights at many of the terminals. Terminal 2 definately.

T2, TBIT, T5/T4 and T6 all have international arrivals facilities. T5/T4 is a common shared area for AA/QF(some QF flights - some still operate from TBIT) and DL. The T2 and TBIT facilites were built some time ago. T5 came online in the early 90's and T6 came on line when UA refurbished T7/T8. --Np sca 02:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Should the format in T3 explaining international arrivals (inspections done elsewhere) be applied for all other terminals? I really don't like double listing airlines (departures here, arrivals there) as if the planes really operate from multiple terminals! HkCaGu 17:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would do what you have done to T3--my opinionSox23 20:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Distinguishing Delta destination Liberia

User Elektrik_blue_82 keeps reverting my idea to clarify confusion that Delta's destination is 'Liberia, Costa Rica' rather than 'Liberia, Africa'. Given Delta's aggresive expansion to Africa, it is perfectly sensible to show '[CR]' after 'Liberia' in order to avoid confusion to Wikipedia readers. Thanks!--Inetpup 21:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

See my reasons here. I've brought it to the attention of the relevant WikiProject. Cheers. /ɪlεktʃɹɪk bluː/ 22:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Seperation of domestic/international flights

I've noticed that at a few US airports (specifically JFK, EWR, ORD and LAX) some airlines domestic and international destinations are seperated. This is not set up in the standard form as set forth in the ProjectWiki Airport guide. Plus, when it's being done, it's inconsistent even within the airport page - i.e. DL and UA destinations being seperated, but AA and NW remaining intact. So, stop doing it. Thanks. Andrewb729 17:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Delta Connection

Despite the fact that I removed it citing that there was no evidence of this route, someone has readded LAX-Tijuana operated by Delta Connection. I don't want to fight with this person over it, but there is still no evidence in Delta's schedules or other online schedules that this route is happening. I find it believable, but see no proof of it as of now. NW036 01:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hong Kong Service on Northwest Airlines

Should Hong Kong be listed as a destination? One user stated on the Hong Kong Airport article that Los Angeles should not be listed becuase it is a direct flight. I have removed Hong Kong since it is not a direct flight. I will not restored until it is decided that if it is a destination or not. Bucs2004 05:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't like listing destinations that are not n/s from the specific airport. In NWA's case, the flight probably goes through MSP (which should already be listed) so I don't think HKG should be on the LAX page since there is no n/s flight on NWA to HKG. Sox23 16:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, this flight goes through Narita. It is routed LAX-NRT-HKG as Northwest flight 1. NW036 18:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Same point...it's not a n/s flight. (I know WP:Airports says that direct flights can be included I just don't like to list when they're not n/s) Sox23 19:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The flight numbers 1 and 2 are LAX-NRT-HKG and HKG-NRT-LAX. All legs are B744. But most of the days it's just not the same plane servicing LAX-HKG and that fits into "faux-direct". Beside, NRT is a hub. HkCaGu 20:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

At the flight information display, you would definitely see Hong Kong as the final destination for the NW flight. It will be something like Hong Kong via Tokyo-Narita being displayed. As such, I think it's perfectly alright to list Hong Kong as a destination. In any case, if you booked the NW flight to Hong Kong, your baggage tag will have only HKG printed and not both NRT and HKG, which would be the case if it was 2 connecting flights. (Unsigned)

Sorry, it's the plane that counts in Wikipedia, not flight number, not aircraft type, not baggage tag, not ticketing, not airport information display, not frequent flyer benefit. Simply compare gate numbers in NRT and you'll see that more often than not the same plane doesn't transport you between HKG and LAX. HkCaGu (talk) 05:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

China Route Bids

I'm in favor of eliminating all the recent additions by various users for the 2008 and 2009 US DOT China route applications until they are approved. As I know the bids are many but routes granted will be few. It is really meaningless to include that many dream routes that far in advance! HkCaGu 22:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The format so far has been to list international flights as pending government approval. Why should China be any different? DB (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Because US-China routes are highly restricted and controlled. In the last round 4-5 airlines applied and 1 (UA IAD-PEK) was granted. This time there are more than a dozen routes applied for and unless someone can enlighten me otherwise, it looks like USDOT will grant only a few, and airlines are asking their fans to petition DOT. See related discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports. HkCaGu 05:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The last round had four applications. In this one I count ten. Six will be chosen. DB (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Terminals 4 and 7

I screwed up when editing those two sections. Anything to fix that?

Eagle Remote Terminal

Should we mention something about the American Eagle terminal? After all, you're only boarding a bus at T4. Should it be listed as a separate terminal? Or should it be a sub-heading under T4? HkCaGu 05:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Subheading or a sentence or two mentioning the terminal would be best, seeing as the point is to inform readers the way to reach each airlines and the remote terminal isn't the way to find american eagle. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 14:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Gate Count

Should we really get into gate count at individual terminals? Just click the LAWA link and see all you want! The terminal listing is useful because of the different airlines. I think a count including listing the As and Bs is an overkill. And where is the source of that "must cut X number of gates per year" thing?HkCaGu 22:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's not uncommon for airport articles to have gate counts in the terminal sections; Also, I haven't heard of the "must cut X number of gates per year" thing either...Sox23 22:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

KLAX redirect

I think KLAX should be a disambiguation page, and not redirect here. I believe far more people typing or linking to "KLAX" would expect a TV or radio station article than the article about the airport; and in fact, what few links there currently are to KLAX should actually be linking to KLAX-TV or KLAX-FM. Would anyone object to me making KLAX a disambiguation page? LAX, of course, would continue to redirect here. DHowell 08:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

WestJet

When did WestJet move to Terminal 2? I flew WestJet in 2006 and it was in T3. Did they change it? WestJet (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Marketshare and Network History in The Terminal/Destination List

For the last time, the terminal/airline/destination list area is NOT an appropriate place to list an airline's marketshare, network history, or anything like that, especially if you don't list it for the others.

Gustoj820 (talk)gustoj820 —Preceding comment was added at 01:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Listing arrival cities (international processing terminal different from departures)

I reverted an edit which added the city name for Copa's arrival (Copa's departures are from a different terminal). Before I proceed further, I'd like to get a consensus on this proposal: Shouldn't international arrivals into another terminal (passenger processing, not the plane) not contain the city names which are already mentioned in the departure listing, unless arrivals from different international cities (if more than one for that airline) are processed in different terminals? My reasoning is that it's unnecessarily repetitive and divert attention from its "arrival only" nature. After all, that would be a listing of ORIGINS, not DESTINATIONS. If we apply this repetitive principle, wouldn't we repeat every United (mainline) city in Terminal 6? HkCaGu (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup tags

I removed the neutral point of view and original research tags because there was no mention of a dispute on the talk page and no statement tagged as original research. If there is a concern, please explain it on the talk page and re-add the tags. I also removed a redundant citations missing tag; the refimprove tag is still there. Ashill (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Gate Numbers

The reason LAX's article should have gate numbers because numerous other airport articles have them, including SFO, OAK, LAS, PHX, DEN, SLC, DFW, JFK, YYZ, and several others have them. Let's be fair, unless it's against Wikipedia policy.

--Limaindia (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed them because a) I don't think they're encyclopedic and only serve a travel guide purpose (WP:NOT), b) WP:Airports policy (though certainly not binding) has no mention of gates in the suggested airport page layout, c) the Airports WikiProject talk page archive has two (brief) discussions and a suggestion to remove them.

The gate numbers are also not explicitly cited. The gates in each terminal are in the official web site's terminal maps, so that's not hugely troubling, but the airline gate assignments aren't so clear.

I know that many airports do have them, and I think they should be removed there too, but I'm not going to spend that kind of time all at once; I just happened to be looking at LAX so I removed them here. There may be good arguments to include gates, but the fact that other airport articles have them holds no water as far as I'm concerned. Moreover, there's no requirement that all airport articles be perfectly homogeneous; that sort of logic makes it impossible to make improvements, particularly in a case where many airport articles have unencyclopedic excessive information. ASHill (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Gate number RANGES may be useful, but once they're there, somebody will turn them into As and Bs and individual gate listings. I think for LAX there should be an explanation to gate numbering outside of the terminal listings. Like in T1-T8, the first digit matches the terminal number, and the gate number ranges for TBIT and the remote stands, etc. HkCaGu (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be excellent. ASHill (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I should mention that I brought this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Gate numbers. ASHill (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Separate terminals and destinations

I would like to separate the terminals and destinations so there's one, alphabetical list of all the LAX airlines and their destinations separate from the terminals, sort of like Ben Gurion International Airport. I think that in an airport with 9 terminals like LAX, it's hard to find a given airline unless you already know which terminal it uses without using the browser's search function.

I would still mention the airlines that serve each terminal in the prose for the terminal. For example:

• Terminal 1 has 15 gates: 1-3, 4A-4B, 5-14. It was built in 1984 and is the largest of all the terminals in number of gates. Southwest Airlines, US Airways, and US Airways Express operate out of Terminal 1.
• Terminal 2 has 11 gates: 21-21B, 22-22B, 23, 24-24B, 25-28. Terminal 2 was built in 1962, and rebuilt in 1984. Terminal 2 serves as the airport's secondary international terminal after the Tom Bradley International Terminal. Air Canada, Air Canada Jazz, Air China, Air France, Air Mobility Command, Air New Zealand, Avianca, Hawaiian Airlines, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Northwest Airlines, TACA, Lasca, Virgin Atlantic, and WestJet operate out of Terminal 2. International arrivals for Frontier Airlines arrive here, but some TACA and Lasca arrivals are processed at the Tom Bradley International Terminal.

Any objections? If not, I'll make the change shortly. ASHill (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've created my proposed version at User:Ashill/Sandbox. ASHill (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see this until now, but I've reverted because I disagree that this is helpful. Particularly at LAX, because the terminals operate almost completely independently, and we're helping the reader know which terminal to go to for their flight. It also helps organize and rationalize the sheer number of airlines and destinations here; having them all in one extremely long list is visually disconcerting. With two separate lists, we're disconnecting two important pieces of information - which airline flies where, and what terminal they operate from. They really belong together, IMO. FCYTravis (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. My problem is that it's hard to find a given airline if you don't already know which terminal it operates out of. I don't think that organizing airlines by terminal is rational because the terminal an airline uses has little relation to the destinations it serves or any characteristic of the airline. Therefore, I think a single list of destinations is better for seeing which destinations the airport serves by each airline. Once you know which airline you're flying, my version still has all the terminals listed with airlines operating out of each terminal.

Even a number of foreign carriers don't operate out of the international terminal. What led me to think about the change was that multiple editors added V Australia to TBIT even though it was already listed in Terminal 2. That in itself doesn't mean the change should be made, but I think it's indicative of the unwieldy nature of the nine separate lists of destinations.

I agree that the single long list of destinations is visually disconcerting, but I think that the long list of terminals with all the airlines is as bad or worse. An airport with such a large number of terminals and destinations will have a visually disconcerting appearance if we list them all here (which I think we should, like every other airport). What is the best way to present the information? I don't think the current format is very good. Is there another idea? Should the destination list be collapsible, a la Manchester Airport? ASHill (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This idea is very confusing and looks like one big paragraph. This discussion should really be taking place at WP:Airports and not on this talk page...Sox23 20:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ground Transportation > Freeway

Under "Ground Transportation > Freeway" the article states:

"Like all other California airports (with the exception of San Francisco International), LAX does not have direct freeway access; all visitors entering by car must pass at least one traffic light-controlled intersection to transition from the freeway into the airport's main loop road."

First of all, there is no citation regarding "like all other airports."

Second, it is incorrect. I can tell you from personal experience (and it can be verified easily using Google Maps) that you can access SNA directly from the freeway. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=l&hl=en&geocode=&q=airport&near=santa+ana,+ca&ie=UTF8&ll=33.683327,-117.861017&spn=0.004517,0.010042&t=k&z=17

"Like all other California airports (with the exception of San Francisco International)" really adds no value and should be removed completely. The rest of the sentence and section would be fine as is.

166.128.184.213 (talk) 09:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Charter and Cargo Airlines

Recently, an anonymous editor has added sections for cargo and charter airlines. Cargo I don't have a problem with, but I feel that it should only list airlines that operate dedicated cargo flights to LAX. Charter airlines I have a problem with; if they serve LAX on a regular basis they should be listed with the terminal they use. If they don't fly in often enough to have an assigned terminal, they I don't think they should be listed. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Hawaiian717 about charter airlines, I dont think we can list all the hundreds of one-off or very few flight charters as they would not be notable. Charters should only be listed if they are regularly for the majority of a season. MilborneOne (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you as well Hawaiian717 Sox23 21:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree to on charters. Meanwhile for cargo, should we even list the destinations? Cargo route schedules are very volatile, and it's virtually impossible to draw a line to determine what's regular service and what's irregular/special/one-time service on some cargo airlines. HkCaGu (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

LAX Description(Hubs and FC's)

Let's discuss the foreign airline hub/focus city dispute here please. The airline determines what are and are not their focus cities and Mexicana, Quantas, and VA don't name LAX as either a focus city or a hub on their official websites. Quantas flies only to Sydney and it and Mexicana is no bigger in LAX than WestJet in Orlando and you don't call Orlando a focus city for WestJet. Also, JFK and IAD all have have about the same level of VA service as LAX and they don't list themselves as a VA focus city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.5.66.240 (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Official websites don't always list focus cities. Some not even hubs when they're obvious.
• Qantas flies only to Sydney? Have you looked at BOTH terminals? There is a JFK service not listed here which connects passengers to/from several Aussie cities. Sounds like a little hub already.
• Mexicana flies from LAX to almost a dozen cities in Mexico, and WestJet flies from MCO to ONE city that isn't seasonal. You can't define hubs and FCs by the AMOUNT of traffic or passenger. The number of routes and the airlines sizes matter.

LAX article is not the place to dispute this. We only list what's on those other pages. In the case of VX, back-and-forth edits have been simultaneous in airports' and airline's pages. I don't see a dispute for QF and MX. HkCaGu (talk) 06:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I did take your advice and have edited all three of the airline articles. Yes, Quantas flies LAX-JFK but you can't board or deplane in LAX when going JFK-SYD or vice-versa because they technically can't fly intra-US but their plane can't otherwise make it all the way to JFK so connections aren't possible unless you've found something that says they are. Cancun to US service is about the same with DL as LAX to MX service with Mexicana and Cancun is not a focus city for DL. Generally if their annual report doesn't list it then it has been my experience that it isn't the case. We could always email Mexicana though and ask. If they replied affirmative I would consider that a good enough source if the reply was posted here. I'd also like to give some others a chance to weigh in on this if you don't mind for 48 hours. 96.5.66.240 (talk) 06:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

LAX-JFK does not exist solely for SYD. Flights from several Aussie cities arrive within a short time period in the morning, and people from either flight can connect to JFK. At night, the JFK flight arrives LAX at around 10 pm and several flights for Australia depart at 11 pm. It's a hub-like connection where people get on and off, the only exception being that you can't fly "just" LAX-JFK. HkCaGu (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well that's good to know. I was obviously not entirely clear. Still would like others to weigh in though and am tired for 2nite(2 AM-CDT). Ceasing editing 4 the night... 96.5.66.240 (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have put LAX on my watchlist just in case any more edit warring occurs. Cashier freak (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's start discussing this people. A consensus is what we need for a resolution and removal of protection and it can't be reached unless you come out of the wood work and participatte. Best Regards 96.5.66.240 (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Calling the JFK-LAX-Australia feed a hub would be like calling the Continental Hubs-TPA-Other Florida and Carribean cities a hub and it isn't called that so why should this be. That comparison in my oppinion closes the case on the Qantas operation. What do you all think about that and my Mexicana-Delta comparison above? Does that rule these out since we can't find a source and comparative operations don't carry the titles? 96.5.66.240 (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I give up. I genuinely believe that the way the article is right now in its protected state is correct. But I'm not gonna waste enormous amounts of my time arguing this or any other hub and focus city details with you anymore. I've just got too many other things to do with my time in real life and my editing efforts can quite frankly be better used elsewhere. So with that consider my part in this debate over. Thanks and have good evening. 68.52.36.127 (talk) 05:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC) AKA 96.5.66.240 sometimes although the latter is really shared as most all are.

After my weekly break I'd like to state my position, which is similar to much of what NcSchu had said:

• Verifiability does not mean a source for everything. You can't demand a source that 1+1=2.
• Airline websites don't necessarily state their hubs, much less focus cities. Single hub airlines from small countries (where the only airport is the capital's) doesn't need to call their base a hub for it to be a hub. If it quacks likes a hub and walks like a hub, it's a hub. What an airline's website says is authoritative and definitive, but when it doesn't, we go back to watching the duck.
• You can't compare airlines of different sizes and different modes of operations to define, qualify or disqualify hubs and focus cities. Qantas doesn't have 200 cities to serve domestically. The small number of flights for NW in Tokyo and CO on Guam compared to their US domestic cities doesn't make them non-hubs. QF flights from four cities merging into one US airport with possible connection to JFK doesn't mean LAX is not focus city because of other US airlines' sizes of operations in Orlando. The exceptional number of cities serve from LAX to almost a dozen cities in Mexico by MX is the same case.
• For this reason, the discussion shouldn't belong here at LAX. We just carry the consensus there. I'm neutral and too busy to look into VX. But VX aside, let those who know QF and MX decide, not someone who just looks at LAX and compare from the perspective of an airport which has airlines of all continents and sizes.

(P.S. I started typing this more than half hour ago, before the last round of edits from 96.5.66.240/68.52.36.127.) HkCaGu (talk) 05:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that NW AND CO mention NRT and Guam on their websites and Qantas and Mexicana do not. The VX problem is nearly solved so since there are no sources for the other two things that led to a lock here at all and no ever got fired up about it I am going to request an unprotect tonight if no one opposes and the VX issue really does end today. 45Factoid44 (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Article protected indefinitely

Due to numerous edit warring on this article for the past serveral weeks, this article has been semi-protected indefinitely until disputes such as whether or not Qantas, Virgin America, and Mexicana are focus cities for LAX. Cheers! Cashier freak (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I thoguht I was handling the situation in a pretty professional and friendly manner already but apparently if we make known we are debating at all then you guys for some reason feel the need to the lock the page. Perhaps since you were one of the ones who made an edit in the war you could inject your thoughts into the discussion and maybe actually help us towards a consensus. Participation in the discussion by everyone with an oppinion and who has information is the only way to a resolution and I believe we can easily find one if that happens. Thanks!96.5.66.240 (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have experience in airport articles before (in particular - Manchester Airport), and since I initially semi-protected the article, I feel committed to helping resolve this dispute. If you have any comments about either the context of airport(s) (terms etc.) or the protection of the article, feel free to ask. I understand that the dispute may be over the hub-city aspect - what is the dispute specifically? Could somebody outline it in a sentence maybe? I'll lend a hand where apt. Caulde 20:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Essentially we are trying to determine whether Los Angeles is a hub or focus city for Quantas, Mexicana, and Virgin America and we have about 3(me included) who say without sources LAX isn't and about 3 or four who say it is. So we need either a majority in one direction or the other or some kind of definitive source material to justify the inclusion. Thank you very much for offering to help where you can. 96.5.66.240 (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI:I'll be at a different location this weekend so I'll include this IP in my signature so you can discern that it is still me and hold all my comments collectively. 96.5.66.240 (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

People disputing this on the Qantas and Virgin America article histories and talk pages have been directed here to participate as well. The Mexicana article is having no dispute over it. 96.5.66.240 (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Qantas was never mentioned in the article as being a "focus city" but it has been mentioned in the infobox of the Qantas page. But Mexicana, it was put on here a while back but it gotten removed. The only airlines that i saw mentioned in the intro paragraph was American Airlines, Southwest Airlines, and Delta Air Lines (Delta WAS a secondary hub before it cut many of its flights and it was merely a focus city). I just put whether the airline infobox says. Cashier freak (talk) 05:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we clarify as to which airlines definitively use LAX as their focus city or hub? Caulde 11:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a sourced inclusion of LAX as a focus city on Virgin America's article. User:96.5.66.240 has had numerous reverts on this article as well simply because the user disagrees with the statement. But if I may, this is not the place to be discussing focus city status of certain airlines, this should only serve to discuss inclusion of focus cities along with hubs. I will not continue any discussion here about this issue as the issue was already discussed and agreed upon on the Virgin America article and any further discussions regarding LAX as a focus city of Virgin America should really only be there. NcSchu_(Talk) 14:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The USAToday hub guide is a source which contains easily provable inaccuracies for several airlines and can not be backed with anything, most notably the Virgin America website and the company itself and this will be taken up again on that article as well if we can't resolve it here. You never reached any consensus in that airline's article by the way. I read it. Also, Cashier freak, you put Quantas on the LAX article several times as either a hub or a focus city which is in the edit history. None of this gives us any progress towards solving this problem by the way and until this useless bickering stops I'd ask the admins to retain the protection of the article. I'd also like to put out there that its odd that Quantas and Mexicana especially have had the same presence at LAX for sometime without change and only recently have a select few started trying to add them to the description without warranting sources based on their own oppinion of what does and does not constitute a hub, secondary hub, or focus city. I'm also not the only one who disagrees per the edit history but am apparently the only one willing to re-iterate it in a constructive way in this discussion. Let me know when you're ready to actually do something. -96.5.66.240 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.36.127 (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, airline websites almost never, ever, ever talk about focus cities. They don't even mention hubs half the time. That's what secondary sources are for. I am ready to discuss this issue, but you haven't demonstrated any knowledge of Wikipedia policies nor have you provided any Wikipedia-based reason for not including the information. Again, this isn't the appropriate place to be discussing this, and even if a decision is reached on here that doesn't mean it has to be carried over to Virgin America, Qantas or Mexicana articles. NcSchu_(Talk) 22:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If the company doesn't give a title(by the way I can't think of an airline that has FC's who's website doesn't list them) then it isn't an official title and an official encyclopedia article needs official 100% factual information. It's that simple. This is not the place to put information based on your own oppinions. Just the facts. Also, if it can't be debated here then maybe things like that just shouldn't be mentioned in airline articles. If it's in THIS article, then in my oppinion, we should be able to debate it on THIS article's talk page. Why in god's name we have to have a debate about whether we can debate before we actually debate the issue is absurd to me. -96.5.66.240 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.36.127 (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well you're arguing about what focus cities are for specific airlines on an airport's article talk page...it makes much more sense to discuss things specific about an airline on the airline's article. NcSchu_(Talk) 00:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That is now happening. Although the result needs to be carried back to this debate as the answer will have an impact on the LAX article as well. -96.5.66.240 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.36.127 (talk) 01:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I give up. I genuinely believe that the way the article is right now in its protected state is correct. But I'm not gonna waste enormous amounts of my time arguing this or any other hub and focus city details with you anymore. I've just got too many other things to do with my time in real life and my editing efforts can quite frankly be better used elsewhere. So with that consider my part in this debate over. Thanks and have good evening. 68.52.36.127 (talk) 05:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC) AKA 96.5.66.240 sometimes although the latter is really shared as most all are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.36.127 (talk)

Singapore Airlines TPE service

{{editprotected}} Taipei on Singapore Airlines ends today.

• For Singapore Airlines under TBIT, It should now read "Singapore, Tokyo-Narita"

Thanks! Cashier freak (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Stifle (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Request Edits

{{editprotected}} I wish to make several clarifications to the Qantas terminal arrangement in this article. Several new terminal arrangements for Qantas at LAX have come into effect today. [1]

• For TBIT, it should now read "Melbourne, Sydney"
• For Terminal 4, it should now read "Auckland, Brisbane, Melbourne"

Thanks in advance. Mvjs (talk) 04:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

JFK should not be listed according to WP:AIRPORT guidelines. However, the Qantas web link can be included if someone wonders where the JFK flight flies. HkCaGu (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake. Amended. Mvjs (talk) 05:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, V Australia has change the start date for its Sydney services. V Australia's entry should now read:

• V Australia (Brisbane [begins March 1], Sydney [begins February 28])

Thanks again. Mvjs (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Stifle (talk) 10:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, Delta's flight to Lihue under Terminal 5 have resumed. The "resumes October 1" can be removed from the destinations lists. Thanks! Cashier freak (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, Air France service to London-Heathrow ends November 6, 2008. It should read:

• Air France (London-Heathrow [ends November 6], Papeete, Paris-Charles de Gaulle)

Thanks! Cashier freak (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)