Talk:Airlines for America

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation: Airlines This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. This article is supported by the airline project. Business Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contents of the ATA 300 page were merged into Airlines for America. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

The removal of any material from this section must be discussed out first. This article is not an ad for A4A. Insidentally they have an account and are working this article. I refuse to allow them to capture their own article, or sign buddies up to do it for them. --100.44.104.5 (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the Air Transport Association’s stub-class article only contains very basic information, ATA would like to expand the content. In the interest of ensuring the page's neutrality, we would like to know if any other editors would like to work with us to update this article. If there is no interest, we will work to ensure that our revisions fall in line with Wikipedia's standards of neutrality, no original research and verifiability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanekedc3 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC) Lanekedc3 (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the vein of full disclosure and transparency, it is important that a criticisms section is a part of this article. I've taken the advise of previous editors and modified that which was pending and added it back to the article in NPOV fashion. --67.53.166.50 (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updated broken links to correctly go to the ATA website and removed paragraph on seasonal forecasts because the information is no longer accurate. --Lanekedc3 (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A link should be provided to

It's pretty clear to me that whoever set this article up was either an ATA/A4A employee or their son. Almost every link or citation went directly to the ATA/A4A website. Anyone spending a little time researching the Part 121 air travel/cargo industry in the USA will come to find that the A4A spends millions of dollars a year opposing the maintenance of pilot and other employee benefits in order to keep dropping the price of airline tickets and generate more revenue for corporate brass. I need to do some more specific research, and will be doing that, to get this article away from the format of PR ad for the A4A. A4A does good things, but there's always two sides to every story and it's just not being told here. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 08:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since I put this up only a day ago, I've added a number of NPOV elements to the article. I took down my own POV tag. Any additional objective edits are welcome. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what you did was add lots of POV material. What you wrote did not accurately reflect what was in the sources. You also seem to have a very shaky grasp of the style guide. No wonder you were banned. That said, some of the topics you addressed were notable and deserve inclusion. I have deleted your contributions, but am writing new NPOV content touching on the same topics. I have a feeling that you are going to pop here as a sockpuppet. Be prepared for fight if you do. Lesbianadvocate (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POV material of XB70Valyrie edited to NPOV and returned to article. --67.53.166.50 (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is hardly NPOV. I have removed it.Intermittentgardener (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely false for you to claim that you edited the material to be NPOV. Also you are X870Valyrie. You are editing here in violation of your ban.Intermittentgardener (talk) 11:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In what way are you implying the positions the A4A takes on issues effecting passenger safety and consumer protection POV? People come to this article wanting to know about the A4A. The entire section in question tells them the story. How is that POV?? The A4A's actions and desires in the cases outlined are contradictory to their mission statement; safety. How does fighting airline pilot rest improve safety? How does opposing consumer protection improve the traveling public's experience? --50.128.155.168 (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a talk section on your own Talk page you accused a user of "Now, you have a really bad problem with section blanking that needs to stop. If you keep this up I am going to take immediate administrative action against you. If you have a problem with text (that is not a copyright violation or a BLP violation) deleting huge chunks of it is not the solution. Re-write, tag it, bring it up for discussion, or bring in third-parties. Do not delete it. Intermittentgardener (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Stop reverting edits because you don't agree with parts of them. Use the talk page to argue against those who already agree it should be a part of the article. I see from a previous Talk topic that you have a pro-trade association approach to editing Wikipedia. It appears it has not stopped.--50.128.155.168 (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From

WP:YESPOV ...describe disputes, but not engage in them... There is every reason for these sections to be in the article. It appears Intermittentgardener has withdrawn his contention of POV editing. He has no retort. --50.128.155.168 (talk) 04:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

At this time tomorrow, the Criticism Section will be restored, by me. A revert by

WP:VANDALISM since it obvious there is a standing directive to discus this section before making any edits to it.--50.128.155.168 (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

You are raging out of control. Intermittentgardener (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you're completely arrogant. You don't think you owe anybody any explanations. And most of all, you're completely incapable of following fundamental Wikipedia editing protocol other than running to a moderator friend to freeze a page AFTER you've violated virtually every cornerstone of Wikipedia guidelines and locked the page into the manifestation YOU believe it should be in.

Here's a perfect example of your violation of Wikipedia etiquette and protocol. From

WP:Discussion

"Follow the normal protocol

When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can instead of just deleting it. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or tweak the wording. Be sure to include citations for any material you add, or it may be removed. If you do not know how to fix a problem, post a note on the talk page asking for help.

Continuing to violation #2, again from

WP:Discussion

Discuss with the other party

Talking to other parties is not a formality; it's imperative to the smooth running of any community. Not having a discussion, or discussing poorly, will make people less sympathetic to your position and will prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. Sustained discussion between the parties, even if not immediately (or even remotely) successful, shows that you are trying to reach a consensus. Also consider negotiating a truce or compromise.

That's now on top of the

WP:YESPOV

violations I've already pointed out.

Hey no. I'm not raging. I'm simply fully laying out what my censure recommend is going to consist of if you don't straighten up your act and start acting like a constructive editor.--50.128.155.168 (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are making false accusations, forum shopping, and editing in violation of a ban. That is pretty much the definition of out-of-control.Intermittentgardener (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-instated the rather strange blanking of some sections as reported on one of the drama boards. I couldn't see any reason for the removal, particularly not a POV reason as stated in the edit summary. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't strange. This material is POV. It does not accurately represent the sources cited. It was also added by a banned user.Intermittentgardener (talk) 10:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed one subsection on pilot rest time because the content in question almost entirely misrepresented the sources cited.Intermittentgardener (talk) 10:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed another subsection on labor relations. The only source cited was an advocacy site run by labor unions. See here [1]. This does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. Intermittentgardener (talk) 10:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just clipped a few sentences because of synthesis and topicality issues from the subsection on consumer protections. I moved what was left to more appropriate location. I deleted the "Criticism" section heading as the sources don't seem to say anything about A4A being criticized. Intermittentgardener (talk) 11:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Things are looking a bit better when User:Intermittentgardener is willing to see that some already existing sections actually merited being in the article, they just needed to be written cited better. I've been asking for his participation in the rewrites and it finally looks like it's happening. More later (soon).--50.128.155.168 (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Airlines for America. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101211235803/http://airlines.org/About/AboutATA/Pages_Admin/AboutATA.aspx to http://www.airlines.org/About/AboutATA/Pages_Admin/AboutATA.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921061354/http://www.airlines.org/Documents/PaxProtectionsFinal.pdf to http://www.airlines.org/Documents/PaxProtectionsFinal.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101212034017/http://airlines.org/ATAResources/Handbook/Pages/AirlineHandbookChapter1BriefHistoryofAviation.aspx to http://www.airlines.org/ATAResources/Handbook/Pages/AirlineHandbookChapter1BriefHistoryofAviation.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140308045616/http://www.anvilcase.com/pdfs/ATA300SPECRev2008.pdf to http://www.anvilcase.com/pdfs/ATA300SPECRev2008.pdf

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.

• 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) 14:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TBD - [email protected]

[email protected] Beth^{[To Airlines via iLocal 1]}
Cite error: There are <ref group=To Airlines via iLocal> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=To Airlines via iLocal}} template (see the help page).