Talk:Air Wisconsin

Wisconsin Low‑importance

	Wisconsin portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Aviation: Airlines

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not met

This article is supported by the airline project.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

A w a c (talk · contribs)

Opening comment

Air WIsconsin no longer flies for United Airlines. They now fly only for US Airways.

As of now no, but there are talks that United might have AWAC buy some Embraer 190's for its UAX fleet. Keep your ears out! Rootbear75 (talk) 10:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Management Sentiment

The content recently added to the history section (which I had already removed earlier) has a strong anti-management tone to it. Since I don't want to get into an editing war here, I want to know what other people think of this, in my opinion, opinionated and unsubstantiated view. NW036 20:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it just states the facts--24.220.93.3 21:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Three things. 1-Is the material encyclopedic? 2-Is the material presented in a NPOV manner? 3-The tone used to present some of that material appears to also be an issue. Vegaswikian 23:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you worked for the company you would understand why there is an anti-management tone. As someone who works for ZW, i can say that I have seen many things... and as a member of the company, I cannot and will not edit this because of WP:COI. -Rootbear75 (talk) 11:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

Air Wisconsin Airlines Corporation appears to be the correct name of the company. From their web site it is not clear that anything is called Air Wisconsin. There are a few references to Air Wisconsin Airlines. So this article may not be at the correct name. Since this is a private company, there are no public filing statements to verify this. Should this article be moved. Vegaswikian 00:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air Wisconsin is the publically known name of the airline however. Granted that this is not a definite reason for moving it or not, but when I flew them they announced the flight as "United Express operated by Air Wisconsin" in the welcoming announcement. The info box has AWAC as the parent company, perhaps, just as US Airways has two separate articles for the holding company and the airline itself, there should be a small one about the parent company. Either that or a section should be added to the top of this one. NW036 00:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Normally I would say at least have a section in the airline article for the holding company. In this case, it is not clear that Air Wisconsin Airlines Corporation is not in fact the airline. Airlinecodes lists Air Wisconsin Airlines Corporation as the name with Air Wisconsin under known as. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies) does not really help here. I guess the current name may meet the most common name criteria. Vegaswikian 00:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Destinations

I started updating the destinations with new cities that Air Wisconsin flies to now, but as I added more, it looked more cluttered than it already did. Does anyone have any ideas how to make it look neater without taking up too much room? Some airlines have an entire page devoted to that, but I'm not sure I feel ZW needs that. NW036 00:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have two choices. Both of them used the standard format that you find in the destination articles. Either change to this format and keep the list in this article or change to the standard format and move the list to its own article. Given the number of destinations, I'd vote for its own article. Vegaswikian 01:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I'll try to get that done tonight. Since this would be the first article of this type I've created, I'm going to take the template from US Airways or something and copy in the ZW information. NW036 01:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit: Finished that article and added the link under "Services" NW036 01:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LaGuardia Hub

Doesn't US Airways Express have an Air Wisconsin hub in LaGuardia Airport? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.249.65.188 (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Negative. There is no hub in LaGuardia for maintenance. It is a hub for flight crews though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.29.43 (talk) 13:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Airlines

Someone should update this page to remove references to Northwest Airlines and find out if they are still used by Delta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.27.69 (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet size

Bigman19 is changing reliably sourced content without providing any sources of their own. If Airliner World really got their fleet size wrong, he should contact them; once Airliner World publishes a correction we can cite that. If the issue merely is that fleet size changed since August, we should leave it at the August figure - we don't need to give the current fleet size as long as whe have a source stating when the fleet had what size. Of course Bigman19 is also welcome to provide a published source of their own, but he said he couldn't. "It's true, trust me" unfortunately does not agree with Wikipedia's standards of verifiability. Huon (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this edit description he left on one of the edits "Can't provide new source since I work for the company". I meant to message him and tell him that he shouldn't be editing this article because he works for the company that the articles about; but I got busy with something at work.--KDTW Flyer (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Air Wisconsin. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Airport names

Listed airports should link to the airports in question, not the city they are located in, as this is more useful information. It is also the consensus on other airline pages. I've changed the infobox to be in line with other articles. Reverts should always have an edit summary except in cases of obvious vandalism. 68.48.107.79 (talk) 04:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the formating that your using is the same formatting that is used on all other airline articles. The user has a known history of doing this in the past and has been warned about his behavior. --KDTW Flyer (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why no longer with American?

How come Air Wisconsin stopped operating for American Eagle regional air carrier via a code sharing agreement with American? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clrichey (talk • contribs) 03:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The major airlines (American, United, and Delta) add or end partnerships with regional airlines all the time, over all manner of issues such as the regional's cost structure, on-time performance, contract negotiations with the major airlines' employees, entering into or withdrawing from the part of the country the regional airline operates in (mostly the Midwest in Air Wisconsin's case), etc. The exact reason(s) is usually not made public. In the absence of reliable, publicly-available sources, there is no need to speculate on the causes on a Wikipedia page.Mirza Ahmed (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet size

The fleet size was edited and appears to be incorrect. The sources listed show the fleet size at 60 not 55 and do not provide any information on possible retirement of the fleet in 2022. 98.29.177.132 (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]