Jump to content

Talk:Virgin Atlantic

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

Article name

[edit]

Should the article be moved to "Virgin Atlantic" as the common name? MilborneOne (talk) 10:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree --JetBlast (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No objections after more than a week so article has been moved. MilborneOne (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Is the business trends section and table needed? I only ask as similar tables in the British Airways and British Midland International articles were removed. Cloudbound (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

King who?

[edit]

In the Competition section there is a statement "King called the CAA's decision, which the Government had endorsed, "a confiscation of his company's property"." Who is this 'King'? The citation linked (citation 13, linked to http://www.acl-uk.org/UserFiles/File/BAA%20TDR%20consultation%20paper%20_LHR.pdf) doesn't mention anything about this incident and looks to be a completely irrelevant document. Flibblesan (talk) 08:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a link to John King, Baron King of Wartnaby for info. MilborneOne (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thank you Flibblesan (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox parent company

[edit]

Field should reflect a summary of ownership structure, so not every 2% shareholder, but the majors. To only have Virgin Group implies 100% ownership which isn't the case. Refer Virgin Australia Holdings, Virgin Cruises and Virgin Rail Group for other examples. Goldgold12 (talk) 06:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This field is for the parent company only, not an ownership structure summary. That is covered in the article body. There is no ownership infobox field for the airline template I believe. Thanks SempreVolando (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't see an issue with not including a major shareholder. If Delta owned 2%, you might have a point. - BilCat (talk) 09:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because that is not the definition of Parent company. The majority owner / company with majority voting stock is the parent company and there can only be one. If Delta were parent company of Virgin Atlantic then Virgin Atlantic would be a Delta subsidiary, which it is not. Here the confusion I believe is mistaking parent company for ownership structure. The article very adequately refers to Delta's minority interest in Virgin Atlantic. SempreVolando (talk) 09:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but it is confusing. The regular infobox for companies allows several fields for relevant ownership, and I see no reason airlines should be treated any different. I'll bring it up on the airline infobox page and see what can be done. - BilCat (talk) 09:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have no problem with the ownership structure being listed in an appropriate infobox field, but it definitely shouldn't go in the parent company field, which for now is all we have. Thanks for raising at WP:AIRLINES. SempreVolando (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)From reading the article, the parent company is Virgin Atlantic Limited, a holding company which also owns Virgin Holidays (which is not mentioned in that article). Since we don't currently have an article for the holding company, perhaps we should add it as the parent (assuming this is correct, which I don't!), with its ownership in parentheses/round brackets. - BilCat (talk) 09:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So in wondering who owns Virgin Group, I found it lists "Currently unknown" in that article's infobox! See Talk:Virgin Group#Difficulty in information, but I'm not sticking my nose into that hornets' nest! -BilCat (talk) 10:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you will find that Delta holds shares in one of the holding companies "Virgin Atlantic Limited" and not the airline itself "Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited", the Virgin group structure is not straightforward (probably on purpose) but Delta don't have shares in the airline itself. The article clearly states this in the intro The airline along with Virgin Holidays is controlled by a holding company, Virgin Atlantic Limited, which is 51% owned by the Virgin Group and 49% by Delta Air Lines. So the Parent Company should actually say "Virgin Atlantic Limited" MilborneOne (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There may well be a number of holding companies, trusts etc that sit between the trading entity and the ultimate parent/owners. But these are unlikely to be noteworthy enough to justify articles, so the field should reflect the company at the top of each organisation chart for which there is an article.Goldgold12 (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Goldgold12 on this one -- Virgin Group is not the sole parent company, it seems far preferable to me to accurately reflect the ownership split in the infobox (irrespective of how this field is named). To do otherwise is simply misleading. UkPaolo/talk 07:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The field must state ownership, if ownership % splits are to be listed. As it stands, no such field is currently available in the airline infobox. To list several companies in a 'parent company' field is simply incorrect. SempreVolando (talk) 07:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The parent company is "Virgin Atlantic Limited", so that is what should be in the parent field. - BilCat (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. SempreVolando (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ask the average person who controls Virgin Trains East Coast and they would logically assume Virgin Group, when it actually only has a 10% shareholding, hence why I think important to include. I have started a conversation at WP:AIRLINES that an 'Owner' field be inserted in the Airline infobox in the same manner as the Companies infobox, so this may resolve.
Without an article, having Virgin Atlantic Limited as the parent is of limited value. Holding company articles are allowed, e.g. Virgin Australia Holdings which has multiple subsidiaries that each have an article, but unless Virgin Atlantic Limited has two or more subsidiary articles, not noteworthy enough per WP:BRANCH to justify a separate article. To only have Virgin in 'Parent' or 'Owner' fields IMO misleads by implying 100% ownership. Goldgold12 (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Virgin Atlantic Limited doesnt have an article doesnt mean it is not a parent, the actual shareholders in Virgin Atlantic Limited if notable can be mentioned, and in fact they are in the article. It is not actually needed in the airline infobox. Virgin Atlantic Limited actually has a large number of subsidaries including Virgin Atlantic Airways, Virgin Holidays, Virgin Vacations. The company reports actually say that the "ultimate holding company" is "Virgin Group Holdings Limited" registered in the British Virgin Islands so it would not be wrong to say that the Virgin Group is the owner but Virgin Atlantic Limited is the holding company that provides company reports, a lot of other companies are in the chain of ownership but very few report more than the basics to companies house. Also note in this case Virgin Atlantic Limited does actually own 100% of the airline. MilborneOne (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VS025, 15 Feb 2016

[edit]

There is lots of reporting of the return of VS025 this morning due to a laser beam injuring a pilot. IMHO, this incident is not notable enough to be mentioned in the article yet. Let's wait for the AAIB report (if any) or until a conviction is obtained for the perpetrators, then reassess. Mjroots (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding images

[edit]

I have added an image of the A340 in a hangar at LHR to the Livery section. I know this image came up for discussion in Talk 2007 (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Virgin_Atlantic/Archive_1#Image_of_A340_in_maintenance_hangar), however, its quality has been improved since then and the livery and logo of the airline has changed so it gives some historical comparison. KlickingKarl (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it again, nothing has changed since 2007 it doesnt add to the article, and you cant really see the livery and logo in the dark hangar at the wrong angle. MilborneOne (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boom

[edit]

I tried to challenge the addition of the "Boom Overture" and suchlike in the fleet section and narative. None of the references used mention "Virgin Atlantic" not even Booms own website. If nobody comes up with a reliable reference in the next few days I will remove it again,thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The existing cite isn't entirely clear whether it is Virgin Atlantic or some other Virgin Group entity, true. But a quick search digs up "The first 10 are earmarked for Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Atlantic"[1]; "Virgin Atlantic Airways is the only other known customer. It has pre-ordered 10 aircraft and plans to deploy them on transatlantic routes."[2]. I don't think there's much doubt about Virgin Atlantic's commitment. But I do wonder (as I said in my edit summary) whether this really belongs in the Fleet table, given the very early stage of development. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Boom website doesnt mention Virgin Atlantic just the Virgin Group so I think this is journalists jumping to conclusions, no press releases from Virgin Atlantic or Boom connecting the two. MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may well be right that they have put two and two together to make five, but Forbes in particular is definitely a RS so we can't just discard the references. And Virgin Atlantic would seem to be by far the most logical Virgin entity to operate the Overtures. I can't speak for the IP who originally added this to the fleet table, obviously, but I'd be perfectly happy removing it as WP:CRYSTAL and just leaving the speculative mention in the body. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK on fleet removal based on Forbes - still not 100% convinced but as you say it is a RS. MilborneOne (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2020

[edit]

Virgin Atlantic has changed some 'codeshare partners'. "Air China is not on the list anymore" website: https://flywith.virginatlantic.com/gb/en/before-you-book/partner-airlines.html Carl Grassfield (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Carl Grassfield:  Done! GoingBatty (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Codeshare clarification

[edit]

Hello! Just clarify since Virgin Atlantic codeshare LATAM Airlines, does it mean that they codeshare to LATAM Brasil? Sources said so by the way from Virgin Atlantic source. Together with LATAM we can offer travel direct from London Heathrow to São Paulo, with onward domestic connections throughout Brazil. ([3]) so yeah. Just some clarification if they did codeshare to LATAM Brasil or other subsidiary of LATAM Airlines Group. Thanks! Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: NAS 348 Global Climate Change

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 1 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Snowboarder888 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Guilford 34.

— Assignment last updated by TotalSolarEclipse (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TotalSolarEclipse: In reference to this: while I'm excited to see Wikipedia being used in education, please ensure your students provide sources that actually back up their claims in the article, and aren't just in a somewhat related area. Eilidhmax (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. I will find a way to have my students be more rigorous about this. TotalSolarEclipse (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change section

[edit]

@Snowboarder888 I understand you are editing this section as part of a university assignment, but please refrain from: a) writing in such a biased way (leaning heavily in favour of what the airline says, with no criticism) and b) providing sources that are only somewhat related to the claims you make in your edits (find better sources which back up the specific claims in your edits, please). Eilidhmax (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Eilidhmax I see where your coming from, but would it be possible if you could give me a little more guidance when it comes to biased. Through the article I feel as though I am stating facts by listing actions that Virgin Atlantic is currently taking and am not sure how that could be considered Biased? Snowboarder888 (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the Climate change section based on your feed back. Please let me know what you think Snowboarder888 (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the issue I have with your contributions is that yes, while these are actions Virgin Atlantic have stated they are taking, a) Wikipedia requires secondary sources (ie, sources that are not directly linked to the subject of the article) and b) you have made claims in the article which are not backed up by the sources you have given. Please read your sources more thoroughly and do not include those that have only tangential relations to the subject matter. (One source you have given, for example, mentions Virgin Atlantic only once in an appendix table which states that they have a certified carbon offsetting scheme, but gives absolutely no details about the scheme or its certification beyond that.) Eilidhmax (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]