Wikipedia

Talk:Vietnam Airlines/Archive 1

< Talk:Vietnam Airlines
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Jetstreamer in topic Archived references not used in the article
Archive 1

Hijackings

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Certainly, the 1970 and 1974 hijackings did not happen with Vietnam Airlines but with Air Vietnam. --Avia 03:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Westernization

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article has no information on the transition and Westernization from Russian to European/US aircraft. This was a major milestone during the 1990s. -Rolypolyman 02:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

History

I'm thinking about adding the sections 'History', 'Dining' in the In-flight Service part and 'Golden Lotus Plus' to the article. I'll also be improving 'Incidents involving Vietnam Airlines' and 'Vietnam Airlines Destinations'. Sp33dyphil 6:43 17 February 2010

More images needed

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If anyone out there that has images of pictures relating to Vietnam Airlines, could you please upload onto Wikipedia so I can use them to improve the article. Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp33dyphil (talk • contribs) 07:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Those cargo planes are not freighters

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For the pserson who editted the cargo planes' names, those planes are not freighters because their capacity volmue doesn't justify that, according to Vietnam Airlines Cargo. Also, the Airbus A300 and Tupolev Tu-134 have been retired, and to justify that, no sources provide the fact that Vietnam Airlines has a total of 64 airplanes (or aeroplanes, as I like to call it). Sp33dyphil 21:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

SkyTeam refs

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Alliance section has fourteen references for Vietnam Airlines joining SkyTeam. I can't for the life of me imagine why so many would be needed. There's an official press release somewhere in there; can't we just use that and one other reputable source, like the Economic Times or WSJ, and leave it at that? --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 21:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

What kind of organisation is Vietnam Airlines

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, is Vietnam Airlines a coporation, or a company? Also, is this article about the airline only, or the whole corporation, including catering services? Sp33dyphil (Talk) (Contributions) 21:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really sure what you mean, but this might help clarify a little... you could also check out http://vbqppl.moj.gov.vn/vbpq/en/pages/vbpq.aspx to search for government documents containing "Vietnam Civil Aviation"; I found this one, which declares the establishment of Vietnam Civil Aviation (aka Vietnam Airlines) as a state-owned corporation.
As for your second question, you're asking about how to handle the company's subsidiaries, am i right? IMO, subsidiaries of a major corporation like Vietnam Airlines should be notable enough for their own article. However, a summary of the topic should also be included in this article, since it's related. As for catering services, look this up; Vietnam Air Caterers is a separate company majority-owned by Vietnam Airlines (and part-owned by Cathay Pacific's catering company(!)), so it can probably even have its own article, like VASCO does (and like VAECO should). --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 22:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
A few days before, the article says that Vietnam Airlines is a corporation, not a company. Sp33dyphil (Talk) (Contributions) 23:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, well, given the reference above, I'd say "corporation" would be the correct choice of words. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 00:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

HKG and NRT focus cities??

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

How can HKG and NRT be focus cities? Can anyone provide a source for this? They only fly to its hubs from those cities as I recalled. Snoozlepet (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Fleet: passenger

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An IP-user removed the mention of an Airbus leased out to Cambodia Angkor Air. Why? I intend to revert this. Jan olieslagers (talk) 06:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 12 years ago60 comments3 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Vietnam Airlines/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


Comments
  • Please remember to subst the GAN template.
    •  * Please help me out with this. I don't know what do you exactly mean with "subst" (sorry for my ignorance...).--Jetstreamer (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • File:Aboard a Boeing 777 during Frankfurt flight .jpg seems to lack proper licensing. First, it should be uploaded to Commons, not Wikipedia. Secondly, if you have obtained permission from someone to use their image, you have to send the permission via OTRS.
    • ω Awaiting We should contact User:Sp33dyphil for this particular issue, as he/she is the uploader of the image.--Jetstreamer (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Please do not link to other parts of the article
  • The phrase "Vietnam Airlines was subsequently formed in 1996" sounds awkward and is confusing.
  • The information about Miss World in the lead is WP:UNDUE.
    •   Done. The information has been removed. I agree with you that it is completely irrelevant.--Jetstreamer (talk) 10:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Slogans are not in italics, as should not 'Vietnam Civil Aviation' and 'Civil Aviation Administration of Vietnam' (fixed)
  • Lead says 69, infobox 70 aircraft
    •   Done. According to the reference provided, the fleet has 69 aircraft.--Jetstreamer (talk) 10:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • State Capital Investment Corporation is a plausible article and should be linked (fixed)
  • In the lead it says the airline was established in 1989, yet in the history section it says " January 1956, when it was established"
  • The end of that sentence is awkward; it would be much better to avoid use of a semicolon and instead make two sentences.
  • The sentence "The airline was created as part of the air force, which was to be used for civilian purposes." says that the air force (not the airline) is to be used for civilian purposes.
  • Don't link 'destination', it is a common word and the link doesn't help understand the term if you don't know what destination means. Similarly, don't link tonne and flight, see WP:OVERLINK. Units, such as tonnes, should be converted to imperial units; {{convert}} makes this easy.
  • Specify in which country Vientiane is; that is not common knowledge outside of that part of the world.
    •   Not done. I don't think the article should be that precise. Anyone interested or curious about the location of this city may go to the Vientiane article in order to learn where the city is located. Instead, I have wikilinked Beijing.--Jetstreamer (talk) 11:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • So what did exactly the airline do during the war? Did they have scheduled domestic flights?
    • I'm not sure -- no publications touched on it. Sp33dyphil © • © 06:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "During the late 1980s and early 1990s saw" reads very awkward.
  • "commencement" is an unnecessary complex word.
  • What do you mean by "Western-type aircraft operations"?
    •   Done. It should be read “Western-built aircraft”.--Jetstreamer (talk) 11:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The sentence "By July the following year, the airline agreed to a wet-lease agreement with Dutch lessor TransAvia. The aircraft involved was a Boeing 737–300," is unnecessarily complex, why not just say "By July 1985, the airline started a wet-lease agreement with Dutch lessor TransAvia for a Boeing 737–300"
  • When writing about the past, use past tense.
  • If VNA is a common abbreviation for the airline, specify it in the lead.
    •   Doing.... I don't think so. I'm replacing the acronym used throughout the article.--Jetstreamer (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Business class is not a proper noun and thus not capitalized
  • Try to avoid being poetic; this is an encyclopaedia and information should be straight forward. Avoid "on the eve of the second millennium" or "the following year", just write the dates and years.
  • "and another 767,series −300ER" is awkward phrased (and it should be a hyphen, not a minus).
  • Do not put external links in the middle of the text. Mentioning the registration codes of aircraft (except in accident articles) is trivia and should be avoided.
  • Embargo is linked twice
  • Don't put content of the prose in parenthesis. For instance, then sentence starting with "On 20 June 2005" reads awkward. Start with telling about the inauguration of the flight to Berlin, then inform about Frankfurt.
  • Avoid using acronyms, such as IATA, but spell them out in full.
  • I don't think equitize is a good word to use, as neither of the dictionaries I checked have them (and I've never heard the term before and I'm an economist). Stick to privatise.
  • " Vietnam authorized the plan the following year": who authorized it? Vietnam is a country, not an institution.
  • Don't use superscript for ordinal numbers (just write 60th etc).
  • 'Government of Cambodia' is a proper noun and thus linked. Similar with the Vietnamese.
  • Minimize the prose: instead of writing "during the months of September and October", just say "in September and October".

I've looked down to, but not including, 'future'. In general the contents and referencing look fine, but the prose needs some tweaking. I'm placing on hold and will do the rest of the review later. Arsenikk (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing has been done with these issues since the initial part of the review. I would appreciate that these issues be seen to first, as an intention from the nominee to follow up the review, as I spend quite a lot of time on this sort of reviewing, and I have previously done similar reviews with zero feedback (thus I have been wasting my time). Once these issues are seen to, I'll be more than happy to continue the review. Arsenikk (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanna say that I was a major contributor to the article, which was expanded last year. Since then, my writing has improved a lot, and I do realise some of the mistakes in the article were because of my infancy on the site. Sorry Jet for creating so much work for you, but if you need help on anything, I'd be happy to help (it'd better be about aviation, though). Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 23:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
No problem buddy. Please note that I'm not going to make major modifications to the article, but only to address the issues raised by the reviewer. I'll be contacting you as soon as I need help. Regards.--Jetstreamer (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Additional comments
  • Future is not part of history, so it should be a top-level section
  • The section of future intercontinental flights seems a bit under-sourced, as it talks about early 2011 in the future and parts are not referenced.
  • The quote is rather out of place; it would be better to just state the facts.
  • What do you mean with "with preparations underway to accommodate the airline's aircraft at one of the UK's airlines"
  • The section around " up 18% from 1995[77] – 1996 and 1997," doesn't make sense.
  • What is "A75, A76 main bases"? Military bases? This had to be explained somewhat better
  • The article talks about "28 and 29 March 2010" as the future, it seems
  • The destinations section discusses mostly what flights do not yet operate, which is covered in the future section. Please only discuss this in one

place, and spend more prose discussing the actual network. Arsenikk (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Further comments
  • "Brand new"? What is the definition of brand new, and are all of them really so?
  • Much of the fleet information is a repeat of the information from the history section.
  • Similarly, the 'modernization' section is largely historic information
  • The fleet section should in general be a rather spartan section, with a table overview of the current, future and past fleet. It can include some prose used to describe the status quo.
  • Are the aircraft in the cargo fleet pure freight aircraft, or are the just passenger aircraft? Do the numbers include the figures in the main fleet list.
  •   Done Notes provided. --Sp33dyphil © • © 09:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • There is quite a need for a copyedit here, but I am presuming most of it will be stripped, so I will not comment on it.
  • The statement "retiring and scrapping the unreliable Soviet made planes, because they were involved in all of the airline’s crashes." must reference from reliable sources that the reason for retiring the Soviet aircraft was because they were involved in the accidents (and not other reasons, such as operating costs etc).
    •   Done. Trim (Jesus, the old me is so unrecognisable :P) Sp33dyphil © • © 08:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The section on services can be tightened. Remember, we are neither a travel guide nor the PR department of VA, so just stick to the basics and avoid unnecessary detail. Seat pitches are fine, but details as to how long flights give what type of meals is a bit over the edge. Remember to reference everything and to consequently put metric values first.
  • The accident and incident section needs to be longer, and it needs references. As least give a brief summary of the three lethal accidents.
    •   Done. Only two deadly accidents according to Aviation Safety Network.--Jetstreamer (talk) 12:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Avoid "in the last 22 years", as in a year, well, it will be in the last 23 years, etc. Who knows how long ago that was written
  • "All fatal incidents have involved Soviet made aircraft that have since been phased out of service." is simply POV and marketing talk. If a summary of all three incidents were given, it would be unnecessary to state.
  • All links found elsewhere in the article should not be in the 'see also' section. If an article is not worth mentioning in the text, it is very seldom that it is worthy of inclusion in the see also section.
  • 'Footnotes' should be 'References', with a separate section for 'Notes'.
  • References should be in start case, not all-caps, even if the source uses all-caps
  • Some of the references are a bit weirdly formatted, such as "Flight International (Hanoi)". I do not think Flight International is published in Hanoi. Similarly "ThanhNien News (Vietnam: ThanhNien News)"—why is ThanhNien News repeated?
    •   Not sure. I think this is because of the use of citation templates, in which one of the parameters is the location of the source.--Jetstreamer (talk) 12:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Several refs lack author/publishers, and one lacks accessdates

The stuff which had been copyedited is looking good. Should be ready to pass after this is seen to. Arsenikk (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC) I'm going to pass the article, as it is past the GA criteria. There still is a bit more that could be done, including some style and MOS issues, but these could be regarded as beyond the GA criteria. Arsenikk (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

New chairman

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Pham Viet Thanh is currently the Chairman of Vietnam Airlines [1]. He took office from June 1, 2011.123.23.183.200 (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

A380 MOU

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
  • MOU is not an order - listing as order was wrong
  • Even a source in the article from 2010 (after the MOU) says Vietnam Airlines chief executive Pham Ngoc Minh told Flightglobal on 22 June that the carrier has still not committed to acquiring A380s and the superjumbo is still "under study"..
  • MOU in 2009 and no order in 2012: dead MOU (when the 2009 MOU was confirming its negotiations to order four Airbus A380s, then the negotiations failed)
  • No point in listing old negotiations and MOUs not resulting in orders - even for previously operated planes numbers are not listed
--Steinhfer (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
In that case, please remove it from the fleet table, and reinstate the mention of the A380 in the prose, since leaving it out would imply that Vietnam Airlines hasn't even thought about acquiring the type. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 04:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Are past discussions without result really worth keeping forever? That MOU chatter happens all the time, like Vietnam Airlines signing in 2009 a MOU for 2 additional A350 it never ordered. A MOU is just saying "make a press release and we will discuss later if we actually do it". --Steinhfer (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I have provided a source for the A380 order. Why do we keep on discussing this? Separately, the reference provided for Boeing orders is dated at November, which is clearly outdated. This kind of statements cannot rely on sources that are due for almost 2 months. Please also note that that reference states the airline had taken delivery of only 4 777-200ERs, when it actually operates 10 of them.--Jetstreamer (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • There never was an A380 order, and your source does also not support your claim that there ever was an A380 order.
  • Vietnam Airlines ordered 16 Dreamliners in 2008, and now has only 8 orders. They likely cancelled 8 orders. There are usually no big press releases for order cancellations.
  • When was the webpage you are using as source last updated? And how reliable is it actually? It is likely much more outdated than the 1 months (not 2 months) old source from the most reliable source available (Boeing) I gave.
  • If Vietnam Airlines did order more Dreamliners after November, it should be easy for you to find a reliable source for that.
--Steinhfer (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Your comment about the 777-200ERs indicates that you don't know much about how the aircraft business works, so let me try to explain that to you:
  • Boeing delivered 4 777-200ERs to Vietnam Airlines. The other 6 aircraft Vietnam Airlines might be bought second-hand, or might be been leased from another airline or a leasing company. There is nothing unusual about that.
  • It is easy to find the information that 6 of the 777-200ERs are owned by ILFC, and the customer code shows that these aircraft were delivered from Boeing to ILFC.
  • Just look closer at the 30 A321 orders, and you'll notice similar things:
  • The article claims there are 30 outstanding A321 orders. According to Airbus, Vietnam Airlines has only 20 not yet delivered A321s. The additional 10 orders could be the 10 A321 orders by Vietnam Aircraft Leasing Company (likely to be leased to Vietnam Airlines).
  • The article claims Vietnam Airlines operates 27 A321. According to Airbus, 21 A321 were delivered to Vietnam Airlines, and Vietnam airlines operates 28 A321. Similar as for the 777-200ERs, Vietnam Airlines operates more aircraft than it directly bought from the manufacturer.
--Steinhfer (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Slogan

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

According to the article the slogan is "Bringing Vietnamese Culture to the World". the search results on google seem to further prove this, however the actual website shows "Reach Further" under the logo, implying that that would be the slogan (it sounds very slogan-like, too). However, google's results page is not simply an old cache, as the page title (shown when mousing over the tab) still shows "Bringing Vietnamese Culture to the World". Is that simply an outdated part of the site, and has the slogan officially been changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.2.57 (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The slogan in the infobox has recently been changed twice [2] [3]. No sources were provided in both cases. These edits have been reverted as they were not in line with WP:VERIFY.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Vietnam Airlines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vietnam Airlines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vietnam Airlines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Reliable Source

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

This section will list all reliable source which we can use as reference for this article.

Please add 

*source url ~~~~

to above list.

Thanks, 0x44616E68 (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Fleet

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I noticed that Jetstreamer (talk · contribs) had reverted my change in Vietnam Airlines due to Added sources do not say how many aircraft of each type are in fleet, although my source, from Vietnam Airlines don't say how many air craft but the aircraft configuration is more correct than source from ch-aviation. I doubt that source from ch-aviation is correct, too.

Hence, please keep my change which shows correctly the configuration of Vietnam Airlines's aircraft.

The last time, Jetstreamer (talk · contribs) had reverted my change due to Planespotters is not a reliable source and new orders are not firm yet according to sources given, however as far as I can observe, the fleet information from Plane Spotters matched with information provided by Vietnam Airlines information which can be observed through flightradar24. But I agree it's less reliable than other source since it works like a forum, however the reliability of ch-aviation is still in debate, see Talk:Alitalia/Archive 1#Fleet issue.

I still suggest to re-work my change since it's the most reliable source by now. 0x44616E68 (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Your edits have been reverted. Read my response at my talk page. Planespotters is indeed not a reliable source. If the reliability of the current source is in doubt, try to find another one that is more reliable. But your changes did not support the current figures, that's for sure. Also, do not take further actions on the matter until this is solved. Starting a discussion means you have to wait for comments, and not to take unilateral actions.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Vietnam Airlines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Images

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, is it allowed to put pictures of the fleet in the article like other airline articles? Triila73 (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

You can add some images of aircraft in the article but they really have to be ones that do not exist in the article already. They should not really be in a "gallery" as the reader can use commons for that. A good example would be an ATR-72 or Airbus A330 that dont already feature. MilborneOne (talk) 09:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Archived references not used in the article

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

--Jetstreamer Talk 14:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vietnam_Airlines/Archive_1&oldid=1138333461"