Talk:Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane

More Chronology?

The airline information seems to be completely out of chronology, and someone should probably try to make everything in order, and perhaps all under "History". NagamasaAzai (talk) 01:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Update?

This sentence: While more money may be needed in early 2005, the airline seems to have avoided the threat of bankruptcy. is out of date. Can anyone update the article? :: Salvo (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The site has been updated to include information about Alitalia's potentially illegal ticketing practices.

What a crooked airline! - Steven H.

Alitalia is a budget airline

Alitalia has evolved into a budget airline and operates in Europe as such. Cheap fares, lack of customer services and no real food served on the planes all form the characteristics of a budget carrier.Kalpha 08:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of whether passengers consider them a budget airline, it is whether they are modeled as a low-fare carrier. Unless you have evidence to this, they will not be listed as such in the article. Dbinder 14:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dbinder. A closer look at their marketing activities, their flight prices, lack of serving food on most flights (economy class) and their poor customer services and inexistent corporate responsibility model give away the fact that Alitalia is a budget airline. Kalpha 00:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, the quality of service is not a factor. Low-fare airlines have simplified fleets, an emphasis on point-to-point over hub-and-spoke flights, a simplified fare structure, and a number of other characteristics that Alitalia doesn't have. Iberia's service isn't any better (I found it worse), but they aren't a low-fare airline either. Dbinder 09:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I take your point and leave it as it is. --Kalpha 16:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Alitalia is certainly NOT a budget/low-fare carrier. They are the national/legacy carrier for Italy and neither their fare nor route structure resemble that of a budget carrier. As a sidenote, all Alitalia flight attendants wear uniforms provided by Armani...that alone should tell you they are not a budget airline. Kalpha obviously takes issue with Alitalia and their service, which is fine, but doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Thedjb 17:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I confirm that Alitalia is a full fare airline: flies long range, has the usual full fare ticket structure, and operates connections hub-and-spoke; as for no food being served in economy... you didn't really travel on any other full fare airline in Europe recently, did you ? --Raistlin 10:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Many European airlines have cut their services completely in economy class, here are a few names: Iberia, bmi, SAS etc. Austrian and Swiss have taken the step back and restarted giving free food and drinks.

External links

The Alitalia Italy and Alitalia UK websites are identical. Please remove one of the two. It makes sense to keep the UK site and remove the Italian which could appear in the Italian wiki version.

Complaints and lawsuits

I have restored the complaints and lawsuits section. Someone removed most of the content without any discussion. It is well documented on the web and should remain in this article. Please discuss major changes here in the future.--Kalpha 13:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone has vandalised the article by adding favourable comments on this section. A quick search on blogs and the web will show that sentiment against Alitalia and its business practises is running high. Can someone please help protect this article? --Kalpha 14:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Fertuno has decided to delete this section for his personal reasons. Please discuss before doing major edits. --Kalpha 09:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I loudly disagree with your vision. This is an encyclopedia: stating an airline has some complaints and lawsuits (as all other airlines) is all but encyclopedical. Moreover, stating it is not reputable or infamous for something, is just your personal opinion. Take a look at Wikipedia's policies. --Fertuno 11:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

A whole paragraph for a one off crackpot website (alitaliasucks.com), seems unreasonable, any mention of it really is unnecessary. It has not accomplished anything, been covered in any sort of media source, or affected any change. 02 May 2009

Livery Section

I restored the livery section. I know its a stub, and it doesn't provide much information, but especially with an airline as old as Alitalia a livery section is an important piece of history. I don't have the knowledge to expand it, but I'm leaving it in there to suggest it to be added. —Cliffb 04:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It must be added that the livery has been slightly changed now, if you go on alitalia.com you'll find the new livery (very similar to the old one anyway).

Luggage mishandling

The information that Alitalia is the worst airline for luggage mishandling is not that accurate and should be changed. The AEA statistics only take into account member European airlines and so it is not a world statistic and furthermore the worst airline for luggage mishandling is BA followed by KLM.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/893219/british_airways_fly_the_flag__lose_your_bag/index.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6524639.stm

I think that phrase should either be changed or taken off.

Hubs and focus cities

I would just like to point out that a user has established that Venice Marco Polo International Airport in Venice is Alitalia's third hub. I have permitted myself to correct the error, because the airline's primary hubs are Rome Fiumicino and Milan Malpensa (and in the near future, Rome Fiumicino is destined to be the airline's sole). The fact that Alitalia operates several flights in and out of Venice does not mean that the city serves as a hub for the airline. Furthermore, it is not we who establish whether a city/airport is a hub or a focus city, rather the airline itself. Radarino (talk) 08:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

sukhoi superjets

the sukhoi superjets page says alitalia placed orders...can anyone confirm this?Duhhitsminerva (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the orders for Sukhoi jets were from the airline ItAli. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane SpA is not flying anymore.

Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane SpA has sold all the properties and the Alitalia brand to Compagnia Aerea Italiana SpA. Therefore this page needs to be fully changed to mention that is the former Italian airline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.61.193 (talk) 08:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree the situation has (and is changing) around Alitalia. For now I put up the Current Event template (and I am no template fan) as some restructuring is likely needed once the new alitalia situation is clearer. Arnoutf (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

What they have done in the Italian wiki version is that they have put all the Alitalia article in the past tense and started a new page on Compagnia Aerea Italiana which has been renamed Alitalia-Compagnia Aerea Italiana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

That maybe a solution if the new airline proves to be something completely different from "old Alitalia". However if this was a restart with reduced debt, fewer personel, and new ownership; we could say that it is essentially the same airline (cf bankruptcy of [Delta Air lines]]), in which case I think no new article is needed (or even desirable). In any case I would name new alitalia, alitalia as that is much easier to find, and will be most frequently asked for. Arnoutf (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well the old Alitalia has this website for creditors etc http://www.alitaliaamministrazionestraordinaria.it/ and the new Alitalia is Alitalia-Compagnia Aerea Italiana and NOT Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane. Compagnia Aerea Italiana has bought some assets and brands from Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane and Air One but NOT the company Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane. The Italian press made it clear on the 12th of January 2009 that it would be the end of the old Alitalia after 63 years. Therefore Alitalia-Compagnia Aerea Italiana is NOT Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane but a completely separate company. I suggest to rename the thread of Compagnia Aerea Italiana as Alitalia-Compagnia Aerea Italiana and start the history from the 13th of January 2009 as it is a completely separate company. In this Alitalia page we could say that Alitalia has had the last day of operation on the 12th of January 2009. Furthermore Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane's extraordinary Administrator is Fantozzi while Alitalia-Compagnia Aerea Italiana has got its own management in no way connected to Fantozzi. Fantozzi is working to sell all the assets that have not been sold to Alitalia-Compagnia Aerea Italiana.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.61.193 (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I am still not completely convinced it is a completely different company. Boards of direction change all the time. Indication that it is basically the same company are also present. It is the official flag carrier of Italy, it has the same planes, pilots and staff as the old company. It has the same logo and house style; it has the same call sign and flight numbers. Arnoutf (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This link makes it clearer, the problem is that most links that demonstrate that the new Alitalia is separate from the old are in Italian: http://nbbusinessjournal.canadaeast.com/front/article/537173 Fantozzi is still working in the old Alitalia to sell the parts that have not been bought by Compagnia Aerea Italiana. The logo is the same as it has been bought by Compagnia Aerea Italiana. For example many airplanes, Alitalia Cargo and various other assets (including paintings and so on) are still in the hands of the old Alitalia. In the Italian wiki version they have added a part to say the end of operations of the old Alitalia, in the Italian news they went with cameras to interview the Captain of the final old Alitalia flight. I insist that the best thing to is make Compagnia Aerea Italiana the main wiki page and restart history from there. This page should be about Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane's past and end of operations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.61.193 (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I still am not convinced you may have noticed that your source mentions "There will be nothing manifestly different about the new Alitalia." - which seems to support my interpretation more than yours. I think we should ask some other editors to comment, as it is clear we disagree. Arnoutf (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

ALITALIA, COMPAGNIA AEREA ITALIANA is the same airline with a new owner, instead of the italian Ministry of Treasury, now is a group of entrepreneurs with the 75% of the shares. This is called a privatization. Best Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.109.1.15 (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No it's not the same airline as if it was the same airline it would not just be the assets that would have been sold. Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane in amministrazione Straordinaria is still around selling the remaining assets which include Alitalia Cargo. The "old" Alitalia at the moment still controls Atitech (maintenance), Alitalia Cargo (cargo division) and everything which as not been taken over by CAI. On the last day of operations the newspapers, radio, TV stations etc in Italy clearly stated that after 63 years Alitalia would be gone. Regarding: "There will be nothing manifestly different about the new Alitalia." it means that the logo is the same, the staff wear the same uniform, the flight code is the same and so on. But the Italian wiki version has got a page about the old Alitalia: http://it.wiki.x.io/wiki/Alitalia_-_Linee_Aeree_Italiane and a page about the new one: http://it.wiki.x.io/wiki/Alitalia_-_Compagnia_Aerea_Italiana Furthermore if the company was the same Fantozzi would not be the extraordinary commissioner of Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane in Amministrazione Straordinaria anymore. 'Alitalia died of grandeur,' Augusto Fantozzi, who ran it during its bankruptcy told L'Espresso magazine.'It paid triple for everything. To give you an example: it would send three cars to pick up cabin crew, in case the first got a flat tyre and the motor broke down in the second. It was a waste.' http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2009/01/13/afx5913858.html sevs17 (talk) 12:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's true Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane is "bad" company which still controls some assets and whose debts will eventually have to be paid by tax-payers if not recovered by selling assets, while Alitalia-Compagnia Aerea Italiana is an entirely new airline, the press in Italy covered the last flight of the old Alitalia http://www.lastampa.it/_web/CMSTP/tmplrubriche/giornalisti/grubrica.asp?ID_blog=124&ID_articolo=514&ID_sezione=274&sezione=

The staff were clearly sad as it was the last day of Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane and the new Alitalia a new company, it has the same name and that's it.

Some workers made an "Alitalia Funeral". In Italy all know that Alitalia flying now is a new company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.99.182.114 (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I have an idea where the difference in opinion between editors comes from.
The old Alitalia company went bankrupt and is being restarted as a new company.
The Alitalia Airline continued (same planes, same landing rights, same crews, same logo, same call sign, same flight numbers, same alliance).
The issue here is, should we look at the company (which was discontinued) or at the airline (which is continued)?

• Question - Do you share this analysis about lack of consensus?

In my opinion we should look at the airline; which has continued. Do you agree? Arnoutf (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the you caught the point Arnoutf. I personally like to think that this is a sort of new start. The Alitalia in-flight magazine which had the main title "Rinasce l'Alitalia" (Alitalia is re-born). The debate is open. However, if we reorganise the article and have a section with the end of operations of the "old" Alitalia and the start of operations of the "new" Alitalia, that would be fine to me. But let's make it clear that this is the same airline but new company. sevs17 (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.61.193 (talk)

Remains the question: Should this article be about the Alitalia COMPANY (everyone agrees that company went bankrupt) or the Alitalia Airline ie the Alitalia BRAND (for which everyone agrees it still exists). Arnoutf (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, am convinced that the vast majority of the international readers will be interested in the Alitalia brand/airline, not the company accidentily owning that airline; so I would have the complete history of the airline in one page, perhaps with a subpages for the different companies. (note that the company may have more relevance in the Italian national environment, while the majority of non-Italians is only familiar with the airline and does not care at all about the company). Arnoutf (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I would redevelop a new page, the history is getting too complicated and there is so much to mention. We could put a better history in Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane and remake the whole Alitala-Compagnia Aerea Italiana especially focussing on the new integrated network with Air One and Volare. sevs17 (talk) 10:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.61.193 (talk)

Splitting off history in a subarticle may make sense if it gets too long.

However splitting the article in before after has problems. For example, where do you explain name, logo, flagcarrier status, landing rights, etc. That can only be in both, which uselessly requires duplication of much information which is often a maintenance nightmare. Arnoutf (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

New page

Please note that there is no consensus that the "new" Alitalia is something else than a continuation of the "old" Alitalia. Thus these two incarnations of the same airline company do not need seperate articles (note Delta Air Lines, Northwest Air Lines, United Air Lines and many other US airliners have made restarts after bankruptcy; none of them have "old" vs "new" airline articles). Above discussion is about this topic, please get consensus before splitting the article. Arnoutf (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

That you ARE an Italian makes your edits not necessarily better.

Whether this is "legally" a different company, with different stockholders (change in stockholders also applies to e.g. the US airliner) does not matter for Wikipedia (e.g. DAF Trucks in the Netherlands is now a different company than 20 yrs ago, still one article).

What DOES moatter is that for the international public Alitalia is Alitalia (same planes, same logo, same flag carrier, same landing rights, same staff). This is English, not Italian Wikipedia so the article should reflect the international view; not the Italian one.

Following Wikipedia rules, there is just no consensus for your major changes. So bring together more editors to decide on this before pushing your/Italian point of view on this. Arnoutf (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Are goverment official flying new Alitalia by default? If yes, then Alitalia most likely IS the flag carrier. KLM (The Dutch flag carrier is a private company), and so are (a.o.) British Airways and Air France (have a look at the flag carrier article).

In any case, as I argued above, the Italian opinion (even if that was unanimous as you report) has only limted relevance for the international view on this. You will have to argue the split of the article from an English/International point of view for this version of Wikipedia.

Calling my revert vandalism is not fair, I did not call your massive removal of sourced and stable content vandalism either. As far as I see you have been bold, I reverted, and now we need to discuss before changing the article from the last stable version. Arnoutf (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If you provide a verbatim translation of Italian articles I will be happy to read them. But still, Wikipedia article (inany language) can never be a source for another Wikipedia article.

Please understand that Government running of a company is not needed to be flag carrier. The Dutch government owns exactly nothing of KLM, actually, KLM is a minority partner in KLM-Air France (in other words French stock holders have a majority share). There is no government official involved in KLM at any level. Nevertheless KLM is the flag carrier of the Netherlands. So why should there be any need for government involvement needed to make AlItalia Italy's flag carrier, indeed there is none (hence your complete answer does not address the issue). Arnoutf (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

But you have not argued WHY discontinuity is important. Warn what you want - calling my talkpage supported reversion of your extremely bold, non consensus edit vandalism is a personal attack in itself. And anyway you have already violated wikipedia rules so be careful what you call upon yourself with warnings. Arnoutf (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Legally there has been something labelled as discontinuity. But discontinuity is only a word. As long as the landing rights, destination, planes, logo, call sign, status as official airliner of Italy and (a number of) pilots, air hostesses, ground crew have been continuously owned by either "old" Alitalia or "new" Alitalia, the word is only an "official word" to divert debts. In the view of the (international) readers there has most likely not been a discontinuity at all; in any case not that dramatic a discontinuity that it warrants 2 articles. As I have repeatedly stated above, there may have been discontinuity in the company (I never denied that), but WHY does it matter to this article? Why is the maintaining of a single article not an option for you? Arnoutf (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent). You are getting circular. Discontinuity matters because "we" want to develop two article. "We" do not want to develop two articles. "We" do not agree with Sevs17 that the history is getting too complicated. This is the core of the whole debate. Should there be two articles? There is no consensus for that. That is the issue, you have to convince us (or at least a sizable majority) that two articles are preferrable over one (my opinion is that one is much better for the reader, why don't you accept it?). That has not been accomplished yet, so one article it stays (for now). Arnoutf (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with you! What yo are saying is rubbish! This airline never ceased operations but did get new management, this happends to airlines all over the world, they get new owners, but they don't 'cease ops' then re-begin in a new name! This page is fine, it has perfect history of 'ALITALIA'! Zaps93 (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course eveything is related to the criteria you usually use to understand when two companies are different and should have diferent articles.

Now there are two Alitalia, with different names, both operating in Italy: Alitalia Linee aeree italiane (bad company) and Alitalia Compagnia aerea italiana (operating the planes).

According to the current categories, the first one was an Airline established in 1946, is a Government-owned airline and company in Italy, a company listed on the Borsa Italiana. The second one is NOT listed on the Borsa Italiana, is a totally private-owned airline and company in Italy, was established in 2008.

So, they are totally different companies and they should have different articles. Sinigagl (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Two articles. I agree with Sinigagl and StuporesMundi: with two different companies, two articles are preferred. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 06:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Two articles. I have started a concensus vote so I have added "Two articles" to your entry above. Basil and Stupor, I hope the addition to your entries above is OK with you. Can others now add to this vote, please, in the same format.- Adrian Pingstone (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Two articles. As I wrote before. Sinigagl (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

One article Same name, same logo, same planes, same routes, same landing rights, same use by Italian/Vatican government, same pilots, same staff; new ownership - that is all the difference. Arnoutf (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Two articles. Aslong as no valuble information is lost then it sounds ok, new ownership no big change but it's equal arguements, whatever makes you happy. Zaps93 (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment Please do not redevelop this page yet if two articles are created (I dont have a view either way) then the new airline should be at Alitalia and the older Alitalia should be moved to a new name, Be careful of deleting content from this article as it should be moved first. Also remember all the incoming links will need to be corrected to either old or new. Just to repeat dont delete content from this article but move it first to keep the file history. MilborneOne (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok. If I've understood correctly this is your opinion:

1- This page will keep its name (Alitalia) and will contain the information and history about the new Alitalia (Alitalia - Compagnia Aerea Italiana) since 2008

2- A disambiguation note with a link to the old Alitalia (Alitalia - Linee Aeree Italiane) with the history of the company (1946-2008)

Just to be clear dont copy and paste contents between different articles. MilborneOne (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it seems clear. Go ahead with the change. Please make sure to follow up on MilbornOne's comments though. One other thing: If you use photos of Alitalia airplanes make sure that specific, actual plane (ie same registration number) is/ has been operated by 'New' Alitalia and not only by 'Old' Alitalia (as with the "change" in company many planes were sold off). Arnoutf (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC) I agree with StuporesMundi because the new comapy is totally different with the old one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.32.186.10 (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I think the Old AZ should not mention its final fleet but for the rest is ready for "evolutionary" improvement and closure. If I have further comments I will give them on the talk of Alitalia - Linee Aeree Italiane; i.e. the old Alitalia article. (BTW, I hope there are no hard feelings, I (still) do not like the split in two, but I can accept the new consensus now there is a clear majority for the split). Arnoutf (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Despite my comment about a cut and paste move the new article has been cut and pasted from this - this is not allowed because it breaks the history of the article. You need to delete the new article and move this one to the new name then develop a new article at Alitalia. MilborneOne (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Re-merge with Alitalia

The airline is now to be renationalised and renamed, possibly to Alitalia-TAI. The article for the "new" Alitalias will therefore include Alitalia-CAI, SAI and TAI, which seems a bit arbitrary. There is no longer any clear distinction between an "old" pre-2009 and "new" post-2009 Alitalia, just a series of reorganizations and restructuring, where each time the brand, public perception, staff, fleet, website etc were all carried over to the "new" airline. Therefore I propose that this article be remerged with the main Alitalia article, which should cover the airline's entire history from the 1940s to today. I will start work on this soon (perhaps a draft) if there are no objections. Speed74 (talk) 04:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: I'm going to start work on a draft ASAP and I'll start a formal merge request (including tag at the top of Alitalia and Alitalia-LAI articles) once it's ready. Speed74 (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Chesipiero (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I have started a draft of what will become the proposed single Alitalia article here: User:Speed74/sandbox/Alitalia. Comments and improvements (anyone can edit the draft) are very welcome, although it is still very much a work in progress. I hope to complete the draft within 3-7 days. Speed74 (talk) 06:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to say it, but this project is currently on hold until it becomes clearer what form the relaunched Alitalia will take. The relaunch has been delayed somewhat and the situation isn't clear at present. 109.158.244.145 (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I forgot to log in. The above comment was left by me. Speed74 (talk) 06:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Speed74: I agree with the merger. To be honest, I'm here because I wanted do the same request. The page "Alitalia" should talk about the airline (so, the brand) and not the owner. I rewrote the page in the Italian Wikipedia a couple of years ago. However we made a page about the "History of Alitalia". This page should talk about "it:Linee Aree Italiane", the airline which existed before Alitalia. I think also here we can take inspiration about it.wiki, if you agree. Even if the future is unclear, the page should be merged and then update. --Wind of freedom (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Wind of freedom:@Chesipiero: I was originally planning to clean up the article in mostly minor ways at the same time as merging it, but maybe it would be better to messily merge it without changing anything first, and then clean up the newly merged article. In the new year I will think about what to do and maybe start a formal merge request, if no one else has taken charge. Speed74 (talk) 12:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)