Jump to content

Talk:TAROM

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Please, whoever's posting information about TAROM buying 747s from SAA and opening new routes - a reference is required. The same applies for Tarom's interest in buying A380s and 787s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.214.17 (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TAROM never had Boeing 747 aircraft on its fleet. For the long-haul flights they used IL-62 aircraft (during communist era) and Airbus A310-300 until recently.

cristibur _____________________________________

I want to tell you that you are not at current with the aviation news.Tarom just received the 747 in his new fleet.It also bought three new boeing 777 in this summer.

_____________________________

Can you specify the source of this information, please ? I didn't found that information on TAROM's official website or on other worldwide aviation websites; Anyway, in my opinion it doesn't make sense for TAROM to buy long-haul aircraft, while they dropped all the long-haul flights in december 2003.

How about TAROM's international destinations? Washington? Sydney? San Francisco? Hong Kong? come on...

The two Airbuses ARE out of order because I see them parked everytime I land at OTP.

I am tired to modify everytime this page. This is not the way to build a credibility.

It's up to us to submit verified information or rumors. I'll stick to the first one.

For up-to-date information about Romanian aviation I suggest you go to [1].

Regards,

cristibur

__________________________________ Asculta Cristibur(daca esti roman)imi cer scuze pt felul cum am vb si vreau sa iti spun ca ai dreptate despre flota Tarom.Cineva mia specificat asta si am crezut ca e aderat.Daca nu ma crezi ca Tarom are a310 sau DC-10, poti sa intri pe site-ul www.airliners.net si ai sa vezi ca arata un DC-10 al lui Tarom.Cat despre destinatii, eu traiesc in Montreal si calatoresc cu Tarom in Romania in fiecare luna.Daca nu ma crezi poti sa verifici pe site-ul oficial al Tarom, in sectiunea Harta Site-ului, la Descarca orar de zbor si acolo vei vedea toate destinatiile domestice si internationale ale Tarom, sau la sectiunea noutati si sa intri pe ,,pentru orar de zbor si va fi scris Toronto si Montreal cu Tarom. 

  ArthurNorbert

_______________________________________

Hi, Norbert

Even I am Romanian I'll stick to the English since we are in the english section.

It's true that TAROM HAD 3 Airbus A310 (YR-LCA, -LCB, -LCC) and one leased DC10 in their fleet, but not anymore. YR-LCC crashed in 1995 and -LCA, -LCB are grounded in OTP since 2003.

The funny thing is that I am living in Montreal too, but I'm using CSA or KLM to fly to Romania... TAROM stopped the OTP - YUL direct nonstop flight in 2001.

That site map on TAROM's official website is referring to the TAROM / Air Canada agreement on Bucharest - Montreal / Toronto route with a stop in London LHR using Tarom's OTP - LHR flight and Air Canada's LHR - YUL / YYZ flight.

Enough with the intoxication. If you want to continue like this, it's your problem. This is my last post about this subject.

cristibur __________________________________________ cristibur, Ok i understand that you don't want ot believe me that Tarom has destinations at Montreal, it's okay. I want just ot tell you that the destinations is not me who invented. I took them from the Tarom's official website, at site's map, in update timetable. I also want to tell you to check on admtl.com and to look at airlines serving Dorval and Mirabel, and you sure gonna see the written:Tarom Romanian Airlines.If you don't want anymore to answer here, no problem, me to I'll not post anymore. ArthurNorbert

_____________________________________________

You're a little liar and I'm not going to let you screw up all the work that I've done here.

YOU MORON You stupid and more liar than me you don't want to understand that I don't lie!!!!!!I TOOK THESE INFORMATIONS ON TAROM OFFICIAL WEBSITE !!!I WILL NOT CEASE BECAUSE OF YOU AND I WILL WRITE UNTIL YOU GONNA BE BORED!! I'LL NOT RENOUNCE FOR YOU. You gonna see what I'm able to do if you continue! ArthurNorbert

Now then, children, behave, just discuss the matter civily! - Adrian Pingstone 19:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

_________________________________________________

OK, Arthur, I will explain you once again and for the last time. I think that if you are a logical person, you will understand.

1. Tarom had 3 Airbuses A310 in its fleet. One crashed on March 31, 1995. The other two were used on the long-haul flights until 2003. The last long-haul flight operated by TAROM was OTP -JFK and the last transatlantic flight on that route was in nov. 2003. You can read a recent article in Romanian about the two Airbuses here: [2]. They are grounded for about 2 years now and are not operational; they require very expensive maintenance (in aviation it is called D-check), they are old and they are not investment worthy; TAROM tried several times (without success) to sell that aircraft through Bucharest Stock Exchange; so, they are not part of TAROM's fleet anymore.

2. The DC-10 in the photo was leased in the 90's by TAROM for a couple of years but it was never registered in Romania (it should have had a code like YR-XXX); I don't know exactly the history of that aircraft but I'm sure that it's not in today's TAROM fleet. As a consequence, TAROM's today fleet counts 16 aircraft and not 19. There will be 20 after the arrival of 4 Airbus A318 in 2007.

3. About the international destinations: What you have found on TAROM's website are the possible flight combinations with departure point at OTP, using TAROM flights PLUS some other airlines' flights, airlines that signed agreements with TAROM; e.g.: OTP - YUL (Bucharest OTP - Montreal Dorval) route, operated by TAROM on OTP - LHR (London Heathrow) one stop in London and Air Canada's LHR - YUL flight. This cannot be counted as a TAROM's international destinaton, because it is not a DIRECT Bucharest - Montreal flight and it is not operated by a TAROM aircraft on all its length. On the other hand, OTP - LHR (Bucharest - London) can be counted as an international destination for TAROM. It is a direct flight, operated by a TAROM aircraft.

4. The fact that you are an aviation enthousiast is a good thing and you are welcome to post any accurate and checkable information. Here you a can find a website about Romanian aviation fans: [3]

Regards cristibur

Mon, Oct 17 2005, 13:50

__________________________________

Sorry about that, Adrian, it's just because of the latin blood. But me and Arthur will become good friends, you will see.

cristibur

Hi cristibur,

First I want ot apologize about what I told you Saturday bacause I was very nervous. The best thing is that your are right about all what you said. On Tarom website it's right how you said, but perhaps is their fault too, because each time when I enter to that site it's written the destinations that I put on the page or the destinations that you told me.I will erase right now what I wrote and I'll never write that again, but I'll let you write the real destinations, because I don't know them. One thing that I want to ask you:can I chane that photo and put an another Tarom b737 image, because that one is little bit old?Thanks for that aviation websites! ArthurNorbert

Thank you for your understanding & feel free to ask me whatever you want.

About the photos, you have to be careful with the copyrights. Generally, if it is a photo that you have taken and you agree to release it on public domain, there should be no problem with it. If it is a photo found on the Internet and you are not sure of the copyright status, it's better not to upload it. You can read more about this here: Wikipedia:Uploading images

regards

Cristibur

Cristibur,

I want too ask you something about Tarom and Romanian aviation. I understand that the OTP-YUL direct flights were not profitable, but there are many Romanians in Montreal, so it shall be profitable. On your website that you give me I read and it`s true that Tarom was not profitable with their Airbuses, but CSA uses the same aircrafts and their profitable. It`s that what I can`t understand. Another thing that I want ot ask you is if you have some informations if in the future Tarom will restart transatlantic destinations.

ArthurNorbert

Hi, Arthur

I invite you on this forum : [4] on the FORUM/NEWS section. You can post your question there (you don't have to register); I am sure that you can get more accurate answers.

From what I know, CSA is looking out to replace their 4 Airbuses A310. In my opinion, they make profit (or at least, sustainable losses) on Montreal/Toronto route because they collect passengers from all the Balkans (Romania, Bulgaria, ex-Yugoslavia) plus some ex-Sovietic countries. It's true that TAROM gave them a big hand by stopping the OTP - YUL route; Romania is a very important market for CSA; I think that about 25% of the passengers on PRG - YUL/YYZ are Romanians. They even advertise in Romanian (here in Canada).

Meet me on the forum.

Cristibur,

I just found something unusual on Aeroports de Montreal website, (www.admtl.com). I went at cargo partners and services, and it was writen Tarom Romanian Airlines. Pleasa look there because I don't understand anymore. Tarom don't have services to Montreal, cargo neither. There are also airlines that never operated at Montreal, like Aer Aran or Aeroflot.I heard at news that Tarom is in discutions to re-introduce long haul flights to New York, Beijing, Toronto and Montreal, but I'm not sure. 

  ArthurNorbert

OK, fellows TAROM only has 5 737-300's YR-BGA, BGB, BGC, BGD, BGE, 4 737-700's YR-BGF, BGG, BGH, BGI 7 ATR 42-500's YR-ATA, ATB, ATC, ATD, ATE, ATF, ATG,

The two A310's are stored at OTP. YR-LCA LCB

So, if you know when the new destinations will start: BCN, AGP, HER, BKK, ORD, EWR, JFK, YUL, NOT CURRENTLY SERVED BY TAROM, please write a service start date or please DELETE the FALSE INFO... Thankyou.

TAROM DOES NOT OPERATE THEIR A310-300. THEY ARE OUT OF ORDER. THEY DO NOT HAVE 11 Boeing 737-300's. CHECK ANY AVIATION WEBSITE! DO NOT TRUST ANYTHING TAROM.ro SAYS. THE DESTINATIONS THERE INCLUDE CODESHARE: TAROM DOESN"T FLY THERE; THESE INCLUDE MONTREAL, NEWARK, CHICAGO, NEW YORK, BANGKOK, BEIJING, BARCELONA, MALAGA, CHARLEROI, HERAKLION.

To anyone who understands and has this possibility, Please LOCK the TAROM fleet and destinations sections after checking the right information...

Illegal A310 pic image:Tarom.a310.750pix.jpg

[edit]

Norbert, your pic that was on this article (of the Tarom A310) has four serious lies on it. First, you say it was taken by yourself. No, it was taken by Jussi Keffunen. Next, you say it was taken in 2005. No, look at Airliners.net which shows it was taken on September 19th 2003. Third, you cannot "release it to the public domain, it's not your pic!!!!!!!!!! Fourth, it's not OK to use a.net pics as I think you've been told already. Why do you do these strange things? The pic has been removed - Adrian Pingstone 17:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The worried wikipedia user

[edit]

To the Worried Wikipedia user, how do you know that I'm a member of the Romanian aviation forum, www.fly-ra.com? Are you a member of that site? NorbertArthur 30 Decemebr 2005


The house's rule is: cite your source

[edit]

Indeed, Norbert, why do you do these strange things? The Airbuses are still grounded at OTP and TAROM has no intention to make those D-checks, as you already know. And about TAROM buying 5 more 737? Be reasonable and post confirmed info, please.

Cristibur 20:37, 31 December 2005

Another illegal A310 pic image:Tarom a310.yr-lcb.750pix.jpg

[edit]

Norbert, it’s happened again!! Why do you waste your time uploading illegal pictures! We’ll always spot and remove them!!

I've just noticed "your" pic on the Tarom article, of the Tarom A310 at CDG. You have told serious lies about that pic. Just put "LR-YCB" into Google, click on the site www.picavia.foxalpha.com in the results and “your” pic appears.
1. You say it was taken by yourself. No, it was taken by Bernard Charles.
2. You say it was taken in November 2005. No, it was taken in December 2000.
3. It is not OK to use this pic because WP does not accept copyright pics.
4. You have illegally cut off the copyright notice along the bottom of the picture, as is very obvious from the blank white space you have left at the bottom.

I'd love to know why you do these silly things? The pic has been removed - Adrian Pingstone 19:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't me Adrian who put that pic there, I swear! Please believe me because I gave my password to a friend and that stupid is now writing on my username! I don't know what to do! - NorbertArthur
Simple. Choose a new name (maybe ArthurNorbert?) and a new password - Adrian Pingstone 10:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the image. bogdan 21:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another (can you believe this!!) illegal A310 pic at image:tarom A310.yr-lcb.750pix.jpg (this is the same filename as the last illegal pic)

[edit]

I've found yet another NorbertArthur illegal pic on the Tarom article, of the Tarom A310 taxiing at Montreal. NorbertArthur has told serious lies about that pic. Just search for YR-LCA (it's not YR-LCB as the file name says) on www1.airpics.com and the pic appears!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1. He says he took it. No, it was taken by Lennart Rimestad.
2. He says it was taken in December 2005. No, it was taken in July 2003.
3. It is not OK to use this pic because WP does not accept copyright pics.
4. He has illegally cut off the copyright notice along the bottom of the picture, as is very obvious from the blank white space left at the bottom. Picture removed and would some kind person delete it, please - Adrian Pingstone 19:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also:
  • Tarom no longer uses any A310 (according to their site), so the picture couldn't have been taken in December 2005.
  • everything is rather green in the picture, making it very unlikely to be in Montreal during the winter.
So, I deleted this picture, too bogdan 22:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NorbertArthur, if continue uploading copyrighted images on wikipedia, you would get banned. bogdan 22:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Adrian you can delete the pic on Tarom page! I talked with that idiot that was writing on my username and he swore me that he never gonna put again pics there. That pic isn't even well piratated, because it is wrote that the photo was made in December 2005 and after it is said that tha aircraft is in storage. I thank you a lot for spending time for that pic and for caring of the illegal pics and I'm really, really sorry for giving my password to otherone and if you have time, please explain me what kind of images I'm allow to add! I wish you a Happy New Year and all best wishes!
NorbertArthur 4 January 2006
Arthur, to get a new Username and Password (it's odd you haven't done this days ago) just go to the screen where you normally enter your Username and Password. Pretend to be a new user by entering a new Username (ArthurNorbert would be good because then we can recognise your future contributions) and choose a new Password that your "friend" can't guess. That's it.
On the question of what pics you can legally upload the safest answer is to tell you what you can't upload. You can't upload anything off the Internet unless the site says the pics are Public Domain, or it says they can be used for Any Purpose or the pics are under a licence (that I don't understand) called GFDL. You can't use pics that say for Non-commercial Use only. A PD or Any-Purpose site for aircraft is so rare that I can't even tell you of one. The way I work is that I upload only pics off my own camera and I declare them Public Domain which means the pics have no restrictions whatsoever on how or where some other person uses them. The other safe source for pics is Commons, of course. So my main message is that the only really safe pics to upload are off your own camera. You can declare them to be PD or GDFL - Adrian Pingstone 12:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chance to explain

[edit]

Arthur Norbert, you have put several pics on the Tarom page, only one of which was legal (the 737 pic of mine you found on Commons). Can you explain to me what is making you do these daft things, especially considering how much work you put into downloading off a site, preparing Image Descriptions, captions, uploading and putting on the article. So all your effort is totally pointless!! If this goes on someone will surely start procedures to ban you from WP. Please explain your problem because I am spending far too long chasing after you- Adrian Pingstone 20:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His reply is above (first line is "OK Adrian, you can delete the pic ......") - Adrian Pingstone 12:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Fleet change info

[edit]

For user Ardfern: Can you be more specific in pointing the exact source of the information regarding TAROM's fleet changes ? There is no info on the official site [5] and from my knowledge the IL62 and the BACs are discontinued from some time now (at least 10 years). Thank you Cristibur 00:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photos rearranged

[edit]

I added the photo of the new A318 uploaded from Romanian Wikipedia; I also removed one of the 737 photos Cristibur 20:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you have removed the 737 pic. This pic is one of the only two flying pics on the article, is good quality (unlike some of the badly lit pics now in the article) and there's plenty of room for it. So I've put it back - Adrian Pingstone 21:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought there are too many 737s (I left you a message on your talk page). Next time I will start the debate first. Cristibur 21:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied here. Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 23:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article name change

[edit]

I propose changing the name of the article from Tarom into TAROM, since it is an abreviation for Romanian Air Transport. Royal Dutch Airlines is KLM and not Klm; the same thing for other acronyms like NATO, for instance.Cristibur 00:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the 2 A310

[edit]

Romanian ministry of transportation, Mr. Radu Berceanu announced recently that the 2 planes will be rechecked (they require D-check)[6] (Romanian only). The article doesn't say whether the planes are going to be selled or re-introduced and on which routes. So, for the moment, they are not operational, but there are good chances of seeing them at work in the autumn Cristibur 19:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant info.

[edit]

I have deleted the following information from the article

Fair use rationale for Image:Tarom-logo.png

[edit]

Image:Tarom-logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TAROM codesharing agreements

[edit]

TAROM has a code-share agreement with Lufthansa for the Timişoara - Munich flight. You can check it here. (Open the downloadable version) 74.13.213.120 23:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Tarom-logo.png

[edit]

Image:Tarom-logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg

[edit]

Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Apart a subjective point of view, I cannot see any link between TAROM and the Polish Airlines logos; the fact that a Polish designer draw something that looks (arguably) like the above-mentionned logo cannot be considered as an objective reference in my opinion. There are many airlines today using flight (or bird)-related logos. Following this logic means that other airlines' logos (Lufthansa, for ex) would be based on the Polish designer's work ?!

The purpose of editing is improving an existing article. I don't believe that adding this information helps. Cristibur (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TAROM logo in the 1970s
LOT logo, shown in its original design version from 1929 by Tadeusz Gronowski
Lufthansa logo
You are denying a rather striking, uncanny similarity in the space of possible airline logos featuring stylized birds. I sourced and illustrated this similarity, but you chose to obliterate the very mention of it, in essence, censoring, hiding the information. The logo of Lufthansa looks nothing like the logos of LOT and TAROM, but the latter two do look remarkably similar: the used convention of a stylized bird in flight expressed as a particular angle projection -- from below (note the shortened angled lower wing, the upper angled wing, and the relative wing sizes and orientations), the silhouette being the same, and the convention of inscribing the bird in a circle (probably referencing the disk of the sun). I included the Gronowski 1929 image precisely so that the information would be readily examinable. The LOT design was done in 1929, and there had not existed anything like it, not in aviation, not in art. But the TAROM design was adopted in 1954, during Communism, when intellectual property wasn't exactly respected in Eastern Europe. Yet, I am not passing judgment on TAROM's designers (who remain anonymous -- I was unable to uncover any mention of them, nor have I received a reply from TAROM after writing them a couple weeks ago), whereas the Polish design is a work of art by a notable person, a pioneer of the modern art poster, winner of Grand Prix at several World Expos, etc. I think you may be acting out of partisan sentiment, and I would strongly suggest, that you not any more remove my addition to the article, which is topical and informative, but allow it to stand, and if you have doubts, let consensus emerge on this talk page, what to do with it. Meanwhile, I will return it, having explained and justified its addition. I will even make the source better, to LOT's page about the history of this design. This information is true and sourced. You should not remove true and sourced information, just because you don't like it. That's against Wikipedia policy. Instead, you should look for information about the designers and the history of TAROM's logo, so that you could augment the article with even mroe information. That's how Wikipedia works. Respectuflly, --Mareklug talk 09:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again: who says that the similarity between the logos is striking? You are. For me or for someone else might not be that striking. I believe that this makes the matter subjective. The Wikipedia policy (that you referred before) it is very clear on subjective information : not allowed. I don't need to look for information regarding designers, since it was not me who planted this here. So, unless you don't find an objective statement concerning the similarity, I have no other choice but to consider the issue subjective information, and treat it accordingly. Regards, 74.210.86.27 (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please adhere to the WP:NOR. If the similarity is so striking there must be a source to back up the claim. Information in the source about the LOT logo is not questionable, the questionable part is why is the story about LOT logo located in TAROM article? Subjectivity and personal view has no place in Wikipedia.--Avala (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please adhere to reality. The resemblance of the two logos and their chronology is undisputable. Since the LOT's logo is much earlier and was conceived by a famous artist, Tadeusz Gronowski and won a design contest in 1929 held for LOT's logo, TAROM's adoption of a similar graphic in 1954 seems derivative. In any case, after removing "strking", the fact of this resemblance can be stated, as well as the historical/authorship context. In any case, I mentioned this edit conflict and asked whether noting the resemblance is ency on the Airlines WIkiproject's talk page. --Mareklug talk 14:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR is a policy, not something that can be tossed aside. Same with the policy on notability. This is original research, and while I agree things are similar, Wikipedia isn't supposed to be putting forth original ideas and research, and isn't supposed to be the one creating notability. Consensus is clearly for non-inclusion of this information, and it shouldn't be re-added unless consensus changes. Thanks --Matt (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1994 Orly incident

[edit]

Final reports from the BEA:

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corp F Building

[edit]

It mentions a "Corp F Building" WhisperToMe (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DC-3 use?

[edit]

In the early days, at least a few DC-3 were operated. These had retired by the early '70s, but they re-appeared as static exhibits in parks, either as cafes or as playthings for the young pioneers. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on TAROM. 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) 13:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on TAROM. 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) 13:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TAROM fleet

[edit]

So, there have been various edits regarding the current fleet of TAROM. Looking at the official site, it does seem that the list shown there is outdated and maybe we should replace it in this article. I found another current fleet list on Flightradar24 and from what I've read on wikipedia, Flightradar24 seems to be considered a reliable source. Alin2808 (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tu-134

[edit]

I added this plane to the former fleet list, as Tarom is noted as one of the former operators on the Tu-134 page. My edit was reverted, as it was “not sourced”. How ridiculous the reversion is!
1. Nothing else on the former fleet list is sourced! Revert it all immediately!
2. As I noted on my edit and mentioned above, it’s already in another Wiki article.
This is ridiculous! Boscaswell talk 20:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot based your edits on Wkipedia articles, Wikipedia is not a reliable source.--Jetstreamer Talk 11:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:TAROM&oldid=1210393277"