Talk:Seattle–Tacoma International Airport/Archive 1

Air Canada Access

When I went through Seatac, for some reason, even though I was flying Air Canada, I was routed through United Airlines to check my baggage. My AC Flight Boarding pass was printed on a United Background. Anyone know why this is or was? I flew in 2004.-Delta Spartan 23:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing that Air Canada doesn't have facilities there. Airlines often have their partners handle services at some airports to save money. Since SEA is a major airport for United, they probably handle Air Canada's ground services. I've experienced the same situation flying KLM from Rome (handled by Alitalia) Dbinder 23:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Air Canada is a Star Alliance partner with United. I believe United handles AC's ground operations at SEA. Aep 00:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Northwest KOA-SEA

I was looking at the current Northwest timetable and it shows a non-stop daily flight from KOA to SEA. But no service, non-stop or direct from SEA to KOA. Anyone know what is up? 24.113.22.73 07:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at [1] I see that NWA 094 from Kona (KOA) via Maui arrives at Seattle at 5.51a... Aep 17:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at the Northwest Airlines timetable and here's the schedule I see. Flight 95 Minneapolis - Seattle - Maui. Flight 94 Maui - Kona - Seattle - Minneapolis. Both flights are on 757-300s, and the schedule is right for the same plane to make both flights.

Focus City

is SEA still a United Airlines focus city? KSEA 05:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No, United focus cities are Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, Chicago, Washington Dulles and JFK. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Movieman899327 (talk • contribs) 17:38, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

uhhhh no....Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago-O'Hare, Denver, and Washington-Dulles are UA hubs and JFK is not even close to being a UA focus city (despite having 2 hub destinations). The only UA focus city is Tokyo-Narita. Bucs2004 (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Default airport in Flight simulator 2004

KSEA was made the default Airport in flight simulator 2004. Nothing else to be said about that. Nitweet 13:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Nonstop Destinations, Passenger Aircraft Serving and other edits

I removed both the Nonstop Destinations and Passenger Aircraft Serving sections from the article. The destinations listed by each airline are non-stop so it’s redundant to have two sections listing the same information. The reason for removing Passenger Aircraft Serving section is that it has been discussed before that it would be too much work to keep up an accurate list of each aircraft each airline uses at each airport and such lists are currently not part of the standard airport layout from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports. Couple of other changes, US Airways no longer flies SEA-PIT at all, so I removed that listing. KSEA 08:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Just wanted to note that I re-added SEA-PIT because it has been stated by US Airways that this is to be a seasonal service, and is in fact returning this summer. NW036 17:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Delta Airlines SEA-DFW

I added Dallas as a destination from Seattle with Delta Airlines. I'm sure Delta Airlines offers this flight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farhanaliakhil (talk • contribs) 03:57, 27 January, 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE ... Nevermind it's a codeshare flight with Alaska Airlines.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Farhanaliakhil (talk • contribs) 03:59, 27 January, 2007 (UTC)

Alaska SEA-CMH

Please don't add Columbus as a destination served by Alaska Airlines from Seattle. There is no press release announcing a new route and the route is not listed in the online schedule on Alaska's website. In addition, it is highly unlikely that Alaska would add a route on such short notice given that just today they announced two new routes from Portland that are not starting on September 7th, 2007. KSEA 21:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Lists destinations that aren't nonstop

If you notice that Northwest Airlines lists Mumbai as a nonstop destination from Seattle that is incorrect. If you try to book a nonstop flight anytime of the week or year you make a stop over in Tokyo so I think it is unnessessary to list destinations that include stop overs because they aren't nonstop services.

Same with Aeromexico, they don't have service to Guadalajara; you must make a stopover in Mexico City, this is why I am taking off Mumbai and Guadalajara as destinations.

Also Seattle doesn't go to numerous destinations in Europe or East Asia, in Europe all they go to is London, Paris, Amsterdam, and Copenhagen; that isn't numerous destinations. In Asia they go to Tokyo, Seoul, and Taipei. Shanghai and Beijing haven't yet been accepted by the Chinese government so there for you can't count them as ligitement destinations until they are given the ok.

Agreed. Safesler 08:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think NW lists SEA-BOM or SEA-ICN as "nonstops", but they are "direct" and may meet criteria for inclusion. The governing rules here are WP:Airports, not SEA's website. For AM, it is clear that MEX is a domestic hub and any continuation of the flight number shouldn't be listed. But for NW, those hubs (NRT, AMS) are not domestic. HkCaGu (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Beginning August 2008, Hainan Airlines began thrice-weekly direct service from Seattle to Beijing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.162.63 (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Discontinued Service

Is there a need for the discontinued service section? This is inconsistent through different airports and in my opinion really isn't necessary. If it's deemed useful I'll add it to other airports as well. NW036 16:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with NW036...I also think that this section is unnecessary Sox23 19:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Agee, it is not necessary KSEA 05:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone have a problem if I removed it? Sox23 16:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to ask here since we already started discussing this, but several other airports (SAN and RDU for example) have a similar section on past airlines. Any thoughts? I just see it as another inconsistency that should be spread or removed depending on what people think. NW036 21:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

NW036- you should probably bring this up at the discussion page for WP:Airports...I think this would be better posted there because users as a whole could see the topic in discussion rather than those just looking at the SEA talk page...in my opinion I think they should all be removed because they serve no purpose...Sox23 22:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

NWA Focus City

The Northwest Airlines timetable lists SeaTac as an International Gateway, so i'm adding the sentence back but changing it from Focus City to International Gateway. KSEA 04:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

International gateway is fine...probably because NWA has service to Amsterdam, Mumbai, Seoul-Incheon, and Tokyo-Narita. An international gateway is not the same as a focus city so what is in the article now is fine. I like your solution. Sox23 23:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"US ended airline deregulation" -> regulation

"In 1978, the US ended airline deregulation." Shouldn't this be "regulation" instead of "deregulation"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dustywilson (talk • contribs) 21:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Gate assignments

Is it necessary to list every gate assignment for every airline in every terminal? This seems a little excessive, not to mention subject to change. It assumes that every flight will park at the gate listed every day without interruption. LAX, PHL, JFK...none of these airports list the precise gates. I'm suggesting that they be removed. No offense to Beyondweird who listed them. Thedjb 00:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed them. There's no need, they're unencyclopedic and subject to frequent change. DB (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Seperation of domestic/international flights

I've noticed that at a few US airports (specifically JFK, EWR, SEA 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 at LAX, but AA and NW remaining intact. So, stop doing it. Thanks. Andrewb729 22:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Vladivostok Air

Recently I have saw Anchorage listed as a destination for Vladivostok Air. I have removed it from the destination list saying that the flight from Seattle to Anchorage is cabotage. Today, one user readded it as a destination saying that "makes a stop in Anchorage". Should Anchorage be deleted from the list since it is only tech stop for the flight? Bucs2004 04:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Depends on if somebody can actually buy a ticket from SEA-ANC on Vladivostok Air, or even if Vladivostok Air has the right to sell tix (US DOT is very strict). The flights are intended to depart to Russia, but have to make a stop in ANC (presumably for fuel?) Personally, I think only the 3 Russian destinations-Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Vladivostok, and Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk should be listed. Sox23 07:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• This service was supposed to commence summer 2007 (strictly from ANC to Vladivostok) but was canceled within 1 week of start date due to low booking numbers. It is my understanding, and I don't have a linkable source, that they have now opted to start the flight in SEA, with a stop in ANC for both pax and fuel with continuing, same plane, service to Vladivostok. Pax cannot book SEA-ANC, but they can book SEA-Vlad. and ANC-Vlad. Again, it's hard to say whether this will happen given the airline's last minute decision this summer to pull out. I wouldn't hold my breath.Thedjb 19:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hainan Airlines

In the destinations list, Hainan Airlines shows that it no longer is awaiting governmant approval, is this correct??? Sea-Tac 03:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have readded "pending government approval" to Hainan Airlines as I have found no source that approval was granted. Bucs2004 (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hainan now received govt approval to fly SEA-PEK to begins June 9, 2008. Audude08 (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The map is outdated

A new runway is being built, and the runway names have been changed. The new diagram can be found at http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0713/00582AD.PDF. I don't know how to convert and upload it. Could someone else please do this? Thanks. 71.112.224.217 (talk) 04:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on whether or not to include BOM and ICN as destinations for NWA

Do we or do we not include them? Eventhough they stop at an NWA hub and use A332 aircraft on all four segments. Audude08 (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

we should not include them becuase they are not non-stop flights. You have to disembark the planes (I have flown SEA-NRT-ICN before). All thats the same is the flight number. --Airwaysim (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Again we should not simply say "it's not non-stop" and exclude direct flights. Disembark alone shouldn't make an exclusion criterion either. What about the genuine direct like Continental Micronesia's Island Hopper (Guam to Honolulu) on which half the plane (one side) is emptied for security check at every stop (5 stops, 6 segments)? The determining factor should be "is it genuine direct" as expressed in WP:Airport. In my view, however, because NRT and AMS are NWA hubs, the "direct" designation is not genuine, and plus the evidence that they often don't use the same plane, should be reason enough to exclude BOM and ICN despite same aircraft type.HkCaGu (talk) 04:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Southwest SEA-BNA service is not ending.

Southwest's BNA-SEA service will not end as planned for in late January. The flight will be flown after late January, as Southwest has decided to keep the flight. I dont think this required a sitation, so I changed it and made a discussion page.--67.168.190.193 (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Delta has moved to S Gates + HKG Question

Delta has moved in with Northwest to the S gates.

Also, is Northwest airlines starting Hong Kong service? Someone has added it to the list....--216.186.52.115 (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I just checked the airport's website for late 2/12 and early 2/13 flights. Except for one CVG flight, all DL metal are still operating from A. As for HKG, there is going to be a flight number reshuffle for NW's intra-Asia flights, and SEA-NRT will continue to HKG with the same type of aircraft. The current flight number continues to ICN with a different aircraft and thus cannot be listed. HkCaGu (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the DL flights should be moving to the S gates shortly, as NW and DL are consolidating operations. To HKG route - I think that it should not be included because it is not a direct flight. There are many domestic routes with the same flight numbers (I see this all the time with flights on UA in SEA. I was recently at the airport and it listed a direct flight to Jacksonville, which probably went through IAD/ORD/DEN to SEA). --76.22.21.99 (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.21.99 (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The HKG route will use the same type of aircraft, which is an Airbus A333 see WP:AIRPORTS and read direct flight. Cashier freak (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not a non-stop direct flight. A non-stop direct flight is where you fly point A to point B directly. A stopover is typically when the range of the flight is too long, so a stop in made in city C. If no passengers are allowed to board onto that flight, then it is still considered a non-stop direct flight, but with a stopover. This is not the case in SEA-NRT-HKG. SEA-HKG may read in the itinerary, but you have to get off the airplane in NRT. For somepeople, that will be the final destination. Some people will continue onto HKG, while others will board the flight in NRT, simply to fly NRT-HKG. It isnt a direct flight.--76.22.21.99 (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't even be arguing the definition of direct. The listing criteria are at WP:AIRPORT. HkCaGu (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Also please read the definition of a direct flight to see the flight is qualified to list. Cashier freak (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I feel it should not be included because when I read the destinations list, I interpret the destinations as being non-stop, not with a stopover. Now, if the stopover was only for fuel, and no passengers got off, then it could be included. 67.171.172.44 (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

What you feel here at this page doesn't matter. If you have issues, bring it to the talk page of WP:AIRPORT. HkCaGu (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

On direct flight it lists the definition of a direct flight as a flight with the same flight number, even if passengers have to change planes. This is not the case with the SEA-HKG flight. Check it out at nwa.com. 67.171.172.44 (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Check again. Starting late March, SEA-NRT-HKG will be one flight number. HkCaGu (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It also says the aircraft must be the same. SEA-NRT-HKG will same flight number (NW7) and same aircraft (A333). Cashier freak (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

So - before MArch 21, the flight SEA-NRT-HKG will not be a "direct" flight, but a day later, that flight flown the exact same way, just with the same flight number will be a "direct" flight? Thats still doesnt make it SEA-HKG. That just means it still the same old SEA-NRT, NRT-HKG. --24.17.66.32 (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

SEA-NRT-HKG is routed as NW 7 after March 29. Before that date, it will be routed as DTW-NRT-HKG as NW 11 but there is a aircraft change (from a 747 to 333) therefore the flight is not included as a destination on HKG/DTW pages. SEA-NRT and NRT-HKG are two completely different flight numbers. Cashier freak (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

For those who do not understand the meaning of a direct flight. Here is the WP:AIRPORTS guideline:

List non-stop and direct flights only. That means the flight number and the aircraft, starts at this airport and continues to one or more airports. Avoid using the description 'via' since that is more correctly listed as another destination. If passengers can not disembark at a stop on a direct flight, then do not list it as a destination or as 'via'. Direct flights are not always non-stop flights. However, avoid listing direct flights that contain a stop at a domestic hub, as virtually all of these are simply flights from one "spoke city" to a hub, with the plane continuing from the hub to a second spoke city. Furthermore, these flights often involve plane changes, despite the direct designation. Including these flights dramatically increases the length of destination listings, artificially inflates the airline's presence at a location and requires constant updating, as these "timetable direct" destinations have little rhyme or reason and may change as often as every week or two. Cashier freak (talk) 02:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

SEA-NRT is NW 7 and uses an A330. That won't change.

• Until 3/28 (NRT time), NW 7 continues NRT-ICN, but uses a B757, and therefore ICN is not listed as a destination.
• Beginning 3/29 (NRT time), NW 7 will change to NRT-HKG, which uses an A330-300.
• On 3/28, NW 7 SEA-NRT uses an A330-200, different type of plane from 3/29 NRT-HKG. Therefore HKG is not a SEA destination on that day.
• Beginning 3/29, NW 7 SEA-NRT uses an A330-300, same as NW 7 NRT-HKG. Therefore HKG will be a SEA destination. HkCaGu (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not a policy, so stop pretending that it is. Frankly, I find this guideline compeletely useless and is an overly burdensome attempt at creating a low standard of excellence for airports. It should be disregarded, HkCaGu. Safesler 08:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

All right then, you can put HKG on as a destination. 67.171.172.44 (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Does that help? Cashier freak (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

From the list above, despite NRT not being a domestic hub, it is considered a hub for Northwest airlines and that is why the NRT-HKG is added onto SEA-NRT, so should that really be put on the list? Just like their might be a flight with the same planes and flight number of DCA-DTW-SEA on NW.....(Im not sure that you would apply that to an international hub)

Also, SAS does not end service to SEA in October, that article explicitly states that the service has no specific termination date, however it is planned to be between November 09 - April 2010. Unless the SAS website has been updated with the exact date, it should be changed to between Nov 2009 and April 2010. --24.17.66.32 (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

According to this article from Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/travel/2008835921_websas10.html?syndication=rss) flights will end on July 31 now. Cashier freak (talk) 01:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

NW SEA-PEK

One IP has removed Beijing as a destination for Northwest Airlines. Clearly the flight is not shelved it is just postponed. Cashier freak (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC).

With all the uncertainty surrounding the "postponing" of USA-China routes, how can you say that "Clearly the flight is not shelved.?" All other NW/DL international flights are loaded in various GRS systems post 25 March 2010, yet no sign of PEK-SEA. I think it is more "conservative" to not show this as a destination from SEA until such time as a more concrete press release comes from NW, or these flights are actually listed on live scheduling displays. A postponement of a start date does not necessarily mean this flight will actually be launched. Why is it such a big deal to NOT show this as a destination until such time? Johnny aussie (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The date listed for the US-China routes are tentative which means it does not mean it will start on that date. The airline just requested to push the start date to that. It should remain with that date until that date come up. If it does not show in the res system, remove it. If the airline announces the route with the new start date, we can always change it. Charmedaddict (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

This seems pretty straightforward to me. PEK is not yet a destination but it is a planned one. Assuming that there is a citation for the 'planned' part, I suggest the following text: Beijing-Capital [scheduled start date: March 25, 2010]<citation>. We cannot look into the future and see that it will 'begin' on that date but we can look at the present and see that there is a scheduled start date for the flight. The only quibble I have is about the reference [2] which states that NWA is looking to push the start date back and has applied for a waiver. A reference that asserts that 25 March 2010 IS the scheduled start date would be much better. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 16:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that sounds like a good, idea DL/NW will probably give the official date of start later this year, especially if the economy starts to look better. --76.121.4.204 (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

They will probably announce it later this year. PEK is now listed as a destination for NWA and it has "[begins March 25, 2010 (tentative)]". Tentative is put in parenthesis after the start date as this is the tentative date they are looking to launch the flights. Charmedaddict (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, NW does list PEK as a destination. This is because it IS a destination. There is a daily NRT-PEK flight. Per the NW booking engine, all SEA-PEK flights are listed as a connection via NRT. (this is through April 3, 2010).60.241.90.225 (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah i know that but we're talking about here is the planned nonstop service from Seattle to Beijing. DL/NW will announce it with a set start date later this year but we have to see how the US economy is. Charmedaddict (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't count. However, I agree with leaving a tentative designation because of the unique situation here. Pending further information, this may have to change. I say we let it stand until the end of the summer. If they have not stated further information by say, Labor Day, it should be removed entirely. In any case, PEK is not a destintation presently served by NW from Seattle. Safesler 08:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Content dispute

Full protected for three days - please discuss issues on the talk page and if necessary seek out dispute resolution. Cirt (talk) 08:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

HKG (again)

IPs continue to remove Hong Kong as a destination for Northwest Airlines. There is no plane by looking at NWA.com and an A330 is used on both legs of the route. I know this has been well discussed in the "DL has move to S Gates + HKG Question" thread but need to discuss this once more to avoid any edit wars. Charmedaddict (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible to add in [via Tokyo Narita]? If not, really think that information is missleading.--76.121.4.204 (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anything should be disputed here. It should be at WP:AIRPORT, which also has prescribed not to use "via". It would be a real mess if each airport determines what a destination is. HkCaGu (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I added it to the dispute tag along with SEA-PEK since IPs will continue to remove them. Charmedaddict (talk) 00:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

According SEA's website, HKG is not an international route served from their. http://www.portseattle.org/seatac/flights/nonstopinternational.shtml --76.121.4.204 (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The governing rules are at WP:AIRPORTS not the airport's website. If you have a problem, please bring it up there. Charmedaddict (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

We cannot possibly follow each airport's website on judging what is and isn't a destination, because they are not consistent from one airport to another. Some airports list only nonstop, some airports list plane-change directs, and some airports list nothing! Airport websites simply aren't good enough for Wikipedia in terms of destinations. HkCaGu (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

However, if it is listed, don't you think the airport knows exactly were each airline flies directly, non-stop, etc?--76.121.4.204 (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do. And the fact that this website seems to think that it has the authority to claim as truth things that the organizations about which it speaks says is not is why Wikipedia will never be a truly authoritative & relied upon source in any K-12 school, University, or Corporation. There should be a disclaimer or citation if you are really going to do this. Many cities have flights like this and they aren't listed so to say that you're following some over-encompassing, universally adopted rules here is sorta..well..CRAP. Qzd800 (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Everyone must understand what Wikipedia is and what Wikipedia is not. Destinations are not listed just because destinations have to be listed. Everything has a purpose. Projects and consensus processes determine what is encyclopedic and what is not. Basically, listings of terminals, gates, destinations and infobox entries exist to paint a picture of the airport, not to be a directory or indiscriminate collection of information. Gates are listed if they are exclusively "owned" and not shared. Destinations are listed to show the size and services of the airport, and therefore airport operators have no authority to define a "destination". HkCaGu (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What happens if Nw/DL decides to start up a SEA-HKG route? Does the one that is written exist or is a start date put on again?--76.121.4.204 (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If they do, no changes necessary. HkCaGu (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yea...Your WP:Airport rules don't give any kind of answer to this question, they are very vague and not concrete which makes everyone have to have an interpretation war every time, and they are NOT universally followed. I live here and NOBODY considers this be NW route from SEA. It's just another connection we can make in Tokyo. The people arguing to take this off could not be more on the money with what they're saying. Iquseruniv (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

They do. If a flight number goes from point A to B to C, and B is not a domestic hub, and A-B and B-C use the same plane, then C is a destination from A. Formerly, the SEA-NRT flight number continues as NRT-ICN, but NRT-ICN uses a B757 which obviously can't cross the ocean loaded. Therefore, Seoul was not listed, but Hong Kong (A330 all the way) now is. HkCaGu (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You're relying on the fact that it is the same 330. Which is uncertain first of all. And second of all, this is just a way to beef up the number of destinations by small airports. The fact of the matter is it is misleading. Non-stop flights ONLY! 67.183.173.75 (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Go talk at the project level, not here. Although I've argued (unsuccessfully) against listing anything that goes through a hub (and that includes NW NRT), not just a domestic hub, I cannot stand this narrow-mindedness of "nonstop only". For places with few flights, "direct" multi-stop flights actually mean destinations for travelers. HkCaGu (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You can whine all you want, but you're simply trying to be altruistic (sorry for lack of a better word at the moment). That doesn't justify this. A destination is the next stop where people can get off--if they choose to--not when the route number necessary is ends. This isn't a highway.67.183.173.75 (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense, but SEA is a large airport, with substantial service to Asian airports.... so multi-stop doesnt really actually mean a "real" destination. I am just concerned that NW/DL will add the actualy direct, non-stop SEA-HKG, which would be confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.4.204 (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the IP guy here on this one. If somebody who lives in Seattle doesn't view this sorry attempt to pretend something is non-stop when it isn't as a city served from Seattle then it's not. And there is a plane change required so don't even to stay on the freaking plane. This is like calling all of the cities you can connect to through ATL non-stop from whatever spoke you're coming from and that is just a huge load of BS. Qzd800 (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to largely agree. And SineBot makes an additionally compelling reason. Frankly, that's why only the next airport ACTUALLY served should be considered a destination, as in, "Hey, the plane just stopped and we're parked at the gate and we can get off".67.183.173.75 (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I concure. Safesler 08:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Do people who support the elimination of Hong Kong as a destination need to start a topic on the discussion page of WP: AIRPORTS, to see if in this case, an acception to the "direct" flight rule could be made?--98.225.48.221 (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I strongly support this in order to resolve this issue since HkCaGu keeps citing an un-official policy. Safesler 08:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You are no doubt so narrow-minded that you've resorted to personal attack. You people only think nonstops are destinations, and some editors elsewhere in the world will think all destinations even with plane changes should be listed, no question asked. If you ever leave your little closet, you'll see how WP:AIRPORT participants have been bombarded and verbally abused by both sides. Wikipedia is bigger than that. We need consistency and that's why there are Wikiprojects. I've been trying to remove the word "domestic" to remove all NW through-NRT connections, but I haven't succeeded. Stop shooting the messengers! HkCaGu (talk) 08:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that at least removing "domestic" would be an improvement over what the Wikiproject's goals are, but it still is too broad in my view. I don't think that's a narrow-minded position. I think it's one that's actually born out of honesty and simplicity instead of an overburdensome and asinined attempt to make an airport seem as if there are more destinations served directly from that location. That sort of reasoning should arguably be broadened to say, "why not add every freaking destination in the world where someone can make a connection regardless of its route number. Who cares if the direct flight goes to Portland next, they can get on a separate flight and go to Cambodia or catch a heliflight to Wikipedia's server headquarters." I think the wikiproject's goal is still too broad. But I do want to at least commend you for your work on removing one additional burden for Wikipedians. Safesler 23:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Guys. Chill the fuck out. Seriously. Go smoke some hash or some shit. Enjoy life. Die happy. Peace.--121.91.72.170 (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I troll the airport pages pretty frequently (how many edit wars with BillCj have YOU been in?) and the related pages... and WP only lists non-stop destinations EVER. I don't know who this person is who thinks you can add connections even if they do have the same flight number. 67.204.145.88 (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

HKG -> PEK?

The HKG add on is now ending and a PEK is being added? I think that is very confusing, considering NW/DL has plans to start a nonstop route next year.... I didnt bring this up to pick a battle, but it does have a start date for March 30 (?) 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.48.221 (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

maybe its getting confused with the Hainan airlines flight which is adding (and I think on the same type equip too). As a PNW resident who has traveled to hkg, I am at least glad someone is showing that "route" as ending because around here we ALL know there isn't a direct from sea-hkg. NWA does publish it on one flt num. however i think. 67.204.145.88 (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

it's a flight number reshuffle...NW7/8 will now be routed SEA-NRT-PEK with both flight segments using the same plane. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the tag ons as it is really silly for it to be changing every month from HKG to PEK to another destination. Neither are currently served from SEA, other than temporary plans to start SEA-PEK in March of 2010. --76.121.4.143 (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, "March 2010" is not a start date. And we have went over this that PEK uses the same aircraft (A333) from SEA-NRT-PEK and it will no longer be a direct flight after August 31st and switches back to HKG. With the economy struggling, i doubt that there will ever be a nonstop SEA-PEK and there are no nonstop flights from SEA-PEK on NWA.com nor Delta.com from March 2010 onwards. Please see the previous discussion of this matter. Charmedaddict (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have seen all the discussions above as it was originallu started by me. Many people seem to agree with me that eith HKG or PEK should not be listed as flight is a connection. It doesnt matter to the people if the aircraft stays the same and the flight number is the same. They still have to disembark. I can understand that PEK may not be started in March of 2010, but the Seattle Times did report that it was tentivly postponed until March something 2010.--76.121.4.143 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

the rules for listing of destinations is at WP:AIRPORTS (and all editors agree that PEK/HKG will remain as a direct flight) it uses the same aircraft/gate per NW flight stats. For SEA-PEK nonstop, i would wait until an official press release is given by DL/NW then you can list it. Like I said before, i tried to book SEA-PEK flights on nwa.com and delta.com thru June 2010 and you will still have to go thru NRT to get from SEA to PEK. Charmedaddict (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You Just said it your self, you'd have to go through NRT. If wikipedia is trying to be accurate, then it shouldnt list thru- destinations, unless the ended middle stop is simply to refuel.If you go through SEA today, you will not see PEK or HKG listed on the flight board, apart from Hainan's flight. And, are you talking about the editors here on this page or in WP:AIRPORTS? --76.121.4.143 (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

SEA-PEK in 2010 uses different flight numbers...SEA-HKG uses the same flight number/plane all the way. If you totally disagree, please bring this up at WP:AIRPORTS. I am not sure if you are talking about the SEA-PEK nonstop that is rumored to start in 2010 or the direct flight (NW7/8 that uses A333 aircraft on both segment)? And also NW7/8 will become go back to SEA-NRT-HKG using A333 on both segments. How many time do i have to go thru this? Charmedaddict (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

How MAny times do i have to go thru this? To straighten things up about the indefinantly postponed SEA-PEK service on NW, it was originally slated to begin in the beggining of this ear, but soon was changed to indefinate postponement until I think March 31st of 2010. That came from the Seattle Times awhile ago, I dont know if its changed, but thats not what I'm arguing about. I don't think (and apparently a large number of contributors, aswell) that PEK and HKG should be listed as destinations, considering the flights require the you disembark the plane in NRT. If you want the Airports view, in a recent email notifiying people about Iceland Air's inaugural flight, they included this tidbit of info: "Sea-Tac currently hosts 11 airlines to 10 international cities in Europe and Asia (London, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Reykjavik, Paris, Frankfurt, Tokyo, Seoul, Taipei, and Beijing)." Hong Kong is not listed on their. Beijing is only listed because of Hainan Air's flight. We have (1) Air France, (2) Asiana, (3) British Airways, (4) EVA Air, (5) Hainan, (6) Iceland Air, (7) Korean Air, (8) Lufthansa, (9) Northwest/Delta, (10) SAS, (11) United. Since HKG isnt even listed under the destinations, according to the airport it for sure should not be listed. I can send you the full email if you want. If you've noticed I have stopped changing it in light of the recent discussions.--76.121.4.143 (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that way then fine. I withdraw all of my comments! Charmedaddict (talk) 03:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh? So... are you agreeing? Or are you simply withdrawing your comments?--76.121.4.143 (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am just simply not saying any more...Thank you and Adieu! Charmedaddict (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What defines a destination is the consensus at WP:AIRPORT, not by individual airports. Different airlines and airports have always listed routes and destinations with different criteria and standards. Some list codeshares, some don't. Some list "onward destinations", some don't. Some count connections, some don't. WP:AIRPORT editors have long set up a consensus for listing criteria. And although I'd rather see NW/DL NRT connections not listed, as it currently stands, WP:AIRPORT says yes, HKG is a destination from SEA. Stop discussing a SEA-only standard for listing here! HkCaGu (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I went and did a search on NW7 (SEA-NRT-PEK) (here is the SEA flight stats page: http://hosting.portseattle.org/fids/FlightInfo.aspx?MenuItem=1#AnchorSearch) and PEK seems to appear on that page as "via cities" but it states that the flight is departing to Tokyo. When you go to that page just type in NW 7 and choose "All dates" under dates. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 05:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

NW Focus City

I was still wondering if Northwest still calls SEA a focus city? It only has 2 non-hub destinations (PEK and HNL) and rest are to its hubs. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It says nowhere on NWA's site that SEA is a focus city, plus is 5th largest airline there.

Ishwasafish ^{click here!!!}

01:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think its listed as an international focus city (not sure). --76.121.4.143 (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If you find something saying it is, then readd with a source. NW only has flights to PEK, HKG, and HNL and the rest are flights to its hubs so it hardly qualifies as a focus city. Charmedaddict (talk) 22:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

NW doesnt actually fly to HKG or PEK (it was postponed until March of 2010), but I see your point, its just they have flown to HKG, KIX, and I think NGO at some point in the last 10-15 years. They flew to LHR, but the flight was ended in Jan due to the economy and competition. --76.121.4.143 (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, they fly to HKG/PEK direct w/no plane-change. NO SEA-PEK nonstop flights in scheds after March 2010 (don't think it will happen). Charmedaddict (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

and still, if you don't count HKG/PEK that would leave HNL as the only non-hub destination. Rest are to its hubs (MEM, DTW< AMS, MSP, and NRT) still it is barely a focus city. Charmedaddict (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Content Issue #2 - AirTran & Midwest Airlines

Hi all! Over the past few days, 68.231.124.84 and I have been in the midst of an editing battle. According to the SeaTac Airport website, AirTran operates from the South Satellite and Midwest Airlines operates from both Concourse A and the South Satellite. However, after a bit more digging/research, I found that this is not accurate.

In AirTran's case, I looked at the real-time flight data on SeaTac Airport's official page, as well as the arrivals/departures data on AirTran's official website. In both cases, it appears that AirTran was not operating out of the South Satellite, but from Concourse A, specifically gate A14. I've taken some screenshots of my findings to prove that the information on the airport's website is inaccurate: [3] [4] [5] [6]

As for Midwest Airlines, a look at the flight data [7] on SeaTac's website shows that there are Midwest flights operating from both the South Satellite and Concourse A. According to Midwest's webpage, however, the only flight from Seattle is one to Kansas City [8]. A closer look also revealed that Midwest's "flights" from the South Satellite are actually codeshare flights with Northwest/Delta, as evidenced on Midwest's own webpage. [9] As far as I know, codeshare flights should not be listed, according to the Airports WikiProject.

Despite trying to present my proof and research, 68.231.124.84 refuses to acknowledge my presence and continues to post inaccurate information. Am I somehow wrong on this issue? Could someone back me up here (or tear me down - kindly of course)? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickedlyperfect18 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that you have enough evidence for the Air Tran problem, but Midwest does actually fly into Seattle, infact I saw them two days ago after flying in from Europe. NW/Delta has no flights between Seattle and MCI other than as you have found, codesharing on Midwest's flight. --76.121.4.143 (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

To clarify the Midwest situation, Midwest only operates SEA-MCI from Concourse A. According to SeaTac Airport's website, Midwest operates from the South Satellite as well, but Midwest's "flights" from the South Satellite are codeshare flights under Northwest/Delta (and therefore, Midwest should not be listed under the South Satellite, as 68.231.124.84 was doing). Many thanks for the input! Wickedlyperfect18 (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Safesler 19:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)I think that's enough evidence. I say go for the change.

Midwest Airlines does in fact arrive/depart from Concourse A. AirTran Airways however, from personal experience as well, arrives/departs from BOTH the South Satellite and Concourse A. AirTran has a record of sharing gates with Delta Air Lines. I've seen AirTran parked at both the South Satellite and Concourse A at the same time in fact, just a few months ago as I was awaiting my flight to Phoenix on Southwest Airlines. I believe we should keep AirTran's destination info at Concourse A but also list it under the South Satellite as See Concourse A --ZH 22:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZHoover123 (talk • contribs)

But AirTran does not have any flights departing out of the South Satelitte Terminal. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

ZHoover123, I looked at AirTran's flight data as well as SeaTac's arrival/departure information every day in July and August of this year, and periodically after that to see if AirTran was really operating from Concourse A regularly and so far, it has been. With this in mind, I'm fairly certain that I saw an AirTran jet parked at the South Satellite when I returned home from school this past June. AirTran did operate from the South Satellite in 2008 and I believe that they also used the South Satellite when seasonal flights resumed in May 2009. But Delta + Sun Country both moved to the South Satellite in late June, and logistically speaking, Delta was giving up its three gates in Concourse A, including Gate A14 (which AirTran uses now). From an operational standpoint, it would make sense to move AirTran over to Concourse A to make use of some of the gate space abandoned by Delta. Additionally, in my opinion, I don't see Delta and AirTran sharing gates, as both airlines are competitors on the SEA-ATL route (among others around the country) and, as far as I know, there are no beneficial agreements between the two airlines. I could see NW sharing gates with AirTran, because there's very little in the way of competition between the two airlines, but not Delta. I'll continue to track where AirTran arrives/departs from at SeaTac Airport, but I'm fairly certain that the results will show that AirTran only operates from Concourse A. Wickedlyperfect18 (talk) 09:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok that's fine and I completely respect what you've done here. All I'm saying is, just this last August (of 2009) I was in Concourse B awaiting my departure to Phoenix on Southwest and I had a crystal clear view of both Concourse A and the South Satellite considering where Concourse B is located; and happened to see an AirTran parked at Concourse A and at the South Satellite. So according to you, AirTran only arrives/departs from Concourse A, so what would one of their planes be doing at the South Satellite at one of Delta's gates? These are questions we need to ask. And if the two airlines compete with flights SEA-ATL, AirTran isn't doing such a hot job considering that route for them is seasonal?! --ZH 13:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZHoover123 (talk • contribs)

They probably use the DL's gates because there are not enough gates in Concourse A. For example, some CO international flights arrive at Terminal B at EWR but CO is not listed at Terminal B (it is only listed at Terminal A and C). Snoozlepet (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well same difference. They were still using the gate so we need to recognize that --ZH 03:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZHoover123 (talk • contribs)

---

Here's the thing though... it would kind of make sense if AirTran were to use a gate in the South Satellite in August, because AirTran was operating multiple flights to three different destinations, and one gate might not have been sufficient at certain times of the day. For instance, Virgin America uses gate A6, however, they would use gate A4 for their last flight to arrive today, as well as the first/second flight to depart tomorrow. However, we must also put things in perspective - AirTran was operating multiple flights per day when you saw the plane... in August. However, it's only operating one flight a day to Milwaukee now. There wouldn't really be any overcrowding in Concourse A either... there are 14 gates, which is more than enough to handle current capacity, and the fact that SeaTac recently moved Hawaiian Airlines to Concourse A shows that there isn't an issue with overcrowding, rather the void created by Delta left an excess of gate space available. Now, if you look at what gates the Concourse A airlines use, you'd come up with the following:

A1: US Airways

A2: US Airways

A3: US Airways

A4: Virgin America

A5: Frontier / Midwest

A6: Virgin America

A7: American

A8: American

A9: American

A10: JetBlue

A11: Hawaiian

A12: Hawaiian

A13: Frontier

A14: AirTran

The airlines usually stick to their gate assignments, and any deviation would most likely happen with arriving flights. No other airline uses Gate A14 except AirTran and, therefore, the chances are very minimal that AirTran would need to use another gate. I don't think we should be adding AirTran to the South Satellite, because the circumstances are different right now compared to what you saw during the busy summer travel season. It might be alright to add AirTran to the South Satellite during the summer months, because there would be a greater chance that A14 would be occupied, most likely by AirTran. However, unless there's evidence to suggest that another airline uses A14, such that AirTran would need to utilize one of the South Satellite gates on a regular basis, we shouldn't be adding it to the South Satellite. The keyword here is regular basis - if AirTran is using the South Satellite at least once a week, then OK, there's a possible case for adding it under the South Satellite. There's no proof to suggest that this is a regular thing, therefore, it shouldn't be included under the South Satellite, as it implies that it regularly uses the South Satellite in addition to Concourse A, which we don't know. As this is a debated change, I propose abstaining from adding AirTran to the South Satellite until some sort of agreement is reached. Wickedlyperfect18 (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

2008 - Top Five Carriers at SeaTac Airport

Hello all! I have made changes to the market share percentages of the top five carriers at SeaTac Airport, as I found it strange that Horizon Air's market share could go up to 27% (2008) from 13.1% (2007), a staggering increase of 13.9%.

I could not find SeaTac's Activity Report for 2008, so I pulled up the "Total Passengers by Airline" report for December 2008 for my data (statistics data can be pulled up from the link here - [10]) I've also removed the contribution by 131.107.0.77 regarding the combined Delta/Northwest statistic. If someone wants to add it back, the combined airline has a rounded market share of 12.3% (see table below). Wickedlyperfect18 (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Airline	Total Passengers (2008)	Market Share (2008)
Alaska Airlines (AS)	11,007,018	34.19%
Horizon Air (QX)	4,579,251	14.22%
Delta + Northwest (DL + NW)	3,966,113	12.32%
Southwest Airlines (WN)	2,860,092	8.88%
United Airlines (UA)	2,383,843	7.4%
Northwest Airlines (NW)	2,205,125	6.85%
Delta Air Lines (DL)	1,760,988	5.47%
TOTAL PASSENGERS	32,196,528

United SIN direct service

Effective October 25, United Flight 875/876 will no longer be SEA-NRT anymore however with the flight continuing on to Singapore. The flight also uses Boeing 777-200 on both segments and the flight stop in NRT. However, Narita is not a hub/focus city of any kind of United. Therefore, it can be listed as a destination. B'ham35242 (talk) 03:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It really should not be:

Sat, Oct 24, 2009 - Seattle, WA (SEA) to Singapore, Singapore (SIN)

From To Equipment Seattle, WA (SEA) Tokyo, Japan (NRT) Boeing 777 Plane change in NRT Tokyo, Japan (NRT) Singapore, Singapore (SIN) Boeing 777 For at least one of your flights, you must change planes en route, even though your ticket may show only one flight number.--76.121.4.143 (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Still, it will be same-palne service. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all - to B'ham35242 - one might take your statement above to mean UA 875/876 SEA-NRT "will no longer" exist "anymore" and that it becomes a nonstop to Singapore - the flight still parks at a Narita gate before it ever touches ground in Singapore. More importantly, I would like to know why it is so alarmingly imperative to make sure Singapore - and by extension Beijing and Hong Kong - are listed as SeaTac destinations to the point that any attempts to take away these destinations, results in a small, exclusive group of editors reverting these changes within a few hours. When I first came to this Wikipedia page, I was excited to see that Singapore and Hong Kong were going to be nonstop destinations, only to be disappointed to find out that these are "direct" (aka connecting flights with the same flight number and the same type of airplane) flights. I've read this page, and I know at least one person is going to think about responding with one of the following tired arguments;, so please, if you're going to counter this, come up with something a little more original. -

a) The "Big Picture" Argument: Example: I'm foolishly narrow-minded for thinking that only nonstop destinations should be listed.

b) The "Recognition" Argument: Example: "Direct" destinations are just as legitimate as nonstops (translation - direct flights need some love from Wikipedia too, you heartless locals!)

c) The "Red Tape" Argument: Example: WP:AIRPORT is THE authority and YOUR sentiments and input don't matter (so screw you and suck it!)... WP:AIRPORT ! WP:AIRPORT ! WP:AIRPORT ! WP:AIRPORT ! WP:AIRPORT ! WP:AIRPORT ! WP:AIRPORT !

In regards to the last one: I respect the efforts of Wikipedia editors everywhere in the creation of WP:AIRPORT, as it brings needed standards to the table. However, a few users here are treating this resource like a Bible or some vengeful ancient God that's going to strike you with lightning if you refuse to follow his/her rules. I'd like to call your attention to a little quote at the bottom of the incendiary WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT page - Finally, remember that you're in no way obliged to follow all, or even any, of these guidelines to contribute an article. These are not laws, these are merely guidelines. Does this mean that we can completely disregard the guidelines – absolutely not! There are standards for a reason. But, if a growing number of people feel that following one of these guidelines serves to deceive the average Wikipedia user, I don’t see the point in continuing to bow down in strict obedience to this "direct flight" guideline.

Furthermore, the reality is - many people care about nonstop destinations. If I wanted to fly to Singapore, I can evaluate my options myself. I don't have to fly United's "direct" flight, I can just as easily connect through Taiwan via EVA or another destination with another airline... I don't need to get all giddy and excited for a convenient nonstop only to find out that it's merely a glorified connecting flight. If you think my "nonstop exclusive" views are mistaken, try telling these people over at the SeaTac Airport thread on SkyscraperCity [11] that their "nonstop only" ideology is mistaken too and that they have clearly been brainwashed to believe such a silly notion. Wickedlyperfect18 (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: To 74.183.173.237 - spell check is a wonderful thing...

Wow, bravo. I wish I could express my thoughts like that. Thanks! --76.121.4.143 (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Actually, I should really be thanking you - out of curiosity, I started reading the discussion page, and some of your commentary above inspired me to add my two cents to the conversation. I'm tired of reading the same, tired excuses over and over, not to mention petulant drama queens who talk the talk, but are subsequently angered when questioned, cross out their comments, and storm away angrily from Wikipedia, but not without taking a parting shot in need of a good spell check (actual quote from that user's talk page, before it was kindly removed by another user) - "You all godoy two-shoes Wikipedians can go rot in hell!!! Good Riddance!"

That user may have quit Wikipedia, but if he/she happens to be reading this, I have a message for that user - grow up. Seriously, there are more important things to get upset about than someone questioning your stance on a Wikipedia page, like, losing your job, for instance. If the affected user happens to be reading this, read that statement three times out loud to yourself. If you don't agree that it sounds incredibly ludicrous, ask a stranger to read it to you ten times out loud. No one here is trying to attack you... can't we all just express our thoughts and opinions without having someone cry, pout, and damn everyone to hell? We don't need any high school drama-esque attitudes here... if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. I'm a college student, and I'm fairly certain that you are older than I am. I don't need to be telling you this. I've gone off-topic, so I'll stop it here.

Back to the present, I want the pro "direct" flighters to give the rest of us something more substantive than "WP:AIRPORT said so, therefore, that's the way it is." I'd like to know why it's so important for the average Wikipedia user who doesn't know or care about the existence of WP:AIRPORT, to know that, for instance, you can fly to Singapore after stopping in Tokyo. I don't believe this question has been answered satisfactorily by the opposing side. I mean, I care about the fact that I can fly Seattle to Jakarta, with a connection in Taipei courtesy of EVA Air or Seattle to Washington DC with a stop in San Francisco via Virgin America, but you don't see me hawking to add those end destinations. Sure, they're not direct flights, but the concept is the same - you're still getting off the plane and waiting for a period of time before you can board again. Honestly, I can do the research myself - just tell me what nonstop options are available for potential connecting flights and I'll be good. Thank you again, 76.121.4.143, for the inspiration (and apologies for the ranting response.) Cheers! Wickedlyperfect18 (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It really sounds like you are. B'ham35242 (talk) 06:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

And what's that supposed to mean? Just so we're clear, the first comment I wrote regarding you was not meant as a personal attack, rather, I was trying to point out the rather obvious fact that your initial statement could be taken to mean something differing from what you intended to communicate. Though I referred to my last piece as a "ranting response", I was describing the "stream of consciousness" style of rhetoric I was using. Everything I wrote up there was straight-up, raw opinion... even so, I stand by my work and opinions one hundred percent. Why? By striking out your initial commentary, refusing to provide some new, insightful rationale (that doesn't sound like it came straight from 1984), and failing to address any of the questions and thoughts about the issue, you are only confirming and giving credence to the sentiments I expressed above. I felt that it was time for a new voice to join the conversation/debate and high time that someone demanded some real answers and opinions on the issue, and not just the monotonous bits and pieces y'all have given us. I don't want to hear a machine. I don't want to hear some safe answer that skirts the underlying issues at hand. I want to engage you and anyone else who wants to join in in a meaningful discussion, so we can finally come to some sort of conclusion. I want to hear what you think about the issue, not some guidelines. Is that really so much to ask for? A real conversation, rather than the striking out / cursing everyone / retiring bitterly route? I know someone here is capable... I saw glimmers of hope from a few of the conversations above.

--

Charmedaddict (and his previous usernames) hasnt retired. He's now editing under B'ham35242, I believe. --Sb617 (talk · contribs) 08:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... that would make sense, as I recognized the tendency to strike out previous commentary. In that case, the new question of the hour involves the need to create multiple usernames to express the same point of view. I stand by my comments above, as I believe that we don't need to resort to striking out comments, "retiring" and creating new usernames, and telling everyone to go to hell, to have an solid, personal conversation on the issue, which has still failed to happen. I appreciate your contribution - thanks again Sb617! Wickedlyperfect18 (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

--

Am I being tough about it? Sure. Could I use kinder language? Certainly. I sincerely apologize that you may be offended by such harsh words, but someone here needs to crack down and demand some real dialogue from the other side and I feel that nothing else has really worked. I'm not upset or bitter about this, as you probably think... it's just giving me an excuse to create/work with with more opinionated pieces and get the creative juices flowing before the school year rolls around again. I hope that this will lead to some sort of intelligent, substantive discussion, but looking back at history, I have a nagging feeling that my hopes are mistaken. Please prove me wrong. Thanks.

P.S: We'll talk up a storm at WP:AIRPORTS if you tell the people on this SeaTac thread here - [12] - about NWA's Beijing/Hong Kong "direct" flight and United's Singapore flight of similar distinction, emphasizing that these are direct flights, and that people who believe that only non-stop flights matter are narrow-minded. Maybe you can engage them in lovely conversation... Wickedlyperfect18 (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The governing rules about nonstop and direct flights are at WP:AIRPORTS. If you are against it (which both editors above are), please discuss there. Thank you. B'ham35242 (talk) 06:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to quote the wise words of American Idol contestant Megan Joy's brother, CJ Knudson, who yelled out in response to judge Kara DioGuardi's critique of Joy's performance - "Broken Record!", a sentiment that I couldn't agree more with. Cheers! (and besides, there wasn't even a legitimate discussion here to begin with...)Wickedlyperfect18 (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is now being taken to WP:AIRPORTS since true, it is a guideline and not a rule. However, since the "direct flights" issue applies to all aviation article at Wp:Airports and not exclusively SEA. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 04:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think that airport websites can also be misleading. Some airport websites lists only nonstop flights, some list direct/non-plane changing flights, and some list direct flights which require a plane-change. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 04:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Direct flights don't need "love". Projectwide editors do. When we see a route change, we go to all airports involve and edit accordingly. It is then obviously not practical to proclaim "Sea-Tac Exceptionism". Wikipedia needs consistency, and you can't just choose to not follow the guidelines because you don't feel like it or because it says you don't necessarily have to follow them. My constant cry is that "go argue there, not here". Do I need to tell you again about how we get bombarded from both sides of the nonstop-direct issue?

Flying an Asian airline to Singapore is different from UA or NW. The intra-Asia portion is usually operated by planes and crews that don't/can't fly across the ocean, and the schedules aren't tailored for connection. NW and UA are different. Their planes actually continue in the same direction (at least those listed here), and the connection times are tailored to bring you from US to Asia. What's debatable is NW's frequent shuffling of flight numbers (more than once this year, probably due to merger) and the swapping of flight numbers at NRT gates (the few A330s and B747s each day rarely follow the flight number).

Southwest's "direct" flights have been pretty much excluded because they change often, so a case can be made for NW and maybe UA. HkCaGu (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

can we agree to finish this discussion at wp:airports where it is more recent? 66.220.124.56 (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

United Airlines SEA-LAX

Hey all! I have a new topic for discussion... so it previously stated (until I changed it) that United Airlines flies SEA-LAX seasonally. However, I don't believe this is the case - I think United Express subsidiary Skywest Airlines actually flies the route. According to United timetables - [13] - and look at the flights from SEA-LAX, there is a small diamond next to each of the nonstop flights, which indicates that the flights are "Star Alliance/Code Share/United Express." Furthermore, the timetable and flight data show that these nonstop flights are flown with CRJ700s, a plane that is not flown by United itself, but rather, by United Express regional airlines GoJet Airlines and SkyWest Airlines, of which the latter operates at SeaTac Airport. I'm not entirely certain that these are seasonal flights though, does someone else have any insight into that? Thanks! Wickedlyperfect18 (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably, United SEA-LAX is listed as "seasonal" because it was probably served during the winter or the summer season. If you find nonstop flights for this winter nor next summer, you can readd it. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Until this year, HNL had a similar problem. It was flown seasonally, around X-mas time into early January. This may be the case here, so I re-added it [before]. If it shows up in their schedules for DEC/JAN, I think it could be added back in as seasonal, but it is a relatively short time period.--76.121.4.143 (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

They probably flown that route seasonally last year. If you find it in their scheds for Winter 2009 or Summer 2010. Then readd it. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 04:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Southwest SEA-BNA

One IP continue to indicate that Southwest's Seattle-Nashville nonstop flights end October 31. But the flight is indicated as "seasonal". Just need to find out if the flight is operating on a seasonal basis or is it ending completely. No sources were found to support this (only sources added were Southwest's wiki page) which is a big "N-O" for reliable sources. If anyone finds a reliable source, then please make the change. Thanks! 74.183.173.237 (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

According to Southwest timetables, the Seattle-Nashville flight does end on October 31st. That being said, there's no indication as to whether this flight is seasonal or not. All I found was that the flight had been reinstated and as far as I know, I couldn't find anything from Southwest stating that this flight is indeed a seasonal one. I'll let you guys make the call on the seasonal issue. For the record, this particular IP refuses to discuss or look deeper into various issues, preferring to keep provoking edit wars, despite warnings to stop actions. This IP did the same thing when I specified that AirTran and Midwest operate from Concourse A, and an attempt to talk to him did nothing to deter him. This may be slightly off-topic, but is there enough on the table here to request that this IP is blocked? Wickedlyperfect18 (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if you read the Southwest article.... It specifically states that BNA-OAK and BNA-SEA were re-instated as [seasonal] in May. If this IP becomes increasingly problamtic to this article, or others, than I'm sure something could be done, but I'm not 100% on that.--76.121.4.143 (talk) 04:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That's right... somehow the whole seasonal thing completely slipped my mind, my bad guys! Regardless, the flight is ending on October 31st according to timetables... tried to find the press release with the schedule changes, but I couldn't find anything. As for the IP, repeated attempts to contact him/bring him to the discussion table have failed miserably on two different occasions... might this (with another previous incident) qualify as some kind of edit war action on the part of the IP (see WP:EW)? Wickedlyperfect18 (talk) 06:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)