Wikipedia

Talk:Iran Air

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Corrections

edit

The article is full of errors with regards to Airbus orders, especially the sections that talks about the order of 12 A380s. Iran never ordered 12 A380s or any A380s.

https://www.airbus.com/en/products-services/commercial-aircraft/market/orders-and-deliveries

Current events

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is Iran Air still allowed to fly into London given the present situation? 217.155.20.163 19:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Incidents and Accidents

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The EP-IRP incident had 77 fatalities NOT 77 survivors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhabibi (talk • contribs) 12:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

This section, especially the last few lines are VERY biased and need to be changed. I do not know anything about these events and am not an experienced wikipedia user so can't do so myself but somebody should. Cherie

Agreed. This section is clearly written by someone who is openly anti-American, and who places the blame for the incident entirely upon the US. It is deliberately written in such a manner so as to lead the reader to believe that it was an intentional act on the part of Americans. It must be rewritten from a more neutral standpoint.

Can anybody provide any more information about the 4 January, 2008 event? I cant find anything about this incident, and three simultaneous engine fires sounds highly unlikely. SuperPenguin86 (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Irrelevant info.

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have deleted the following information from the article

Sanctions

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

"Due to the sanctions imposed by the US government, Iranian airliners can only acquire airplanes which are at least 7 years old, and they only can be purchased through a third party instead of direct purchase from Boeing or Airbus"

This is impossible. Airbus is not under US jurisdiction. - MSTCrow 22:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

The embargo may still apply with Airbus, since a large number of components on Airbus planes are nevertheless made in the US. It may be REALLY hard for Iran to buy A320s, for example, since all three engine models on offer are made with US contribution (CFM is GE+Snecma, IAE is P&W+JAEC+MTU+RR and P&W, the third choice, is fully US). But, nevertheless, this line is still very shaky - why 7 years, and why not do what other airlines in this awkward situation do - buy Russian (Ilyushin and Tupolev would gladly build them as many planes as they want) or wet-lease (like Cubana does) --Xanthar 04:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

This doesn't sound very accurate. US law isn't international law and it likely wouldn't be able to go after a company in another country who resold a new(ish) aircraft to Iran if they didn't have a US presence. About all they could do is lean on that country. I think a citation is in order for this one. --Raccettura (talk) 00:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Fair use rationale for Image:Iran Air logo.gif

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Image:Iran Air logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

NO A340 For Iran Air

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Iran Air has not leased/bought/received any A340s from Conviasa/Venezuela. This comes directly from the Venezuelan Ambassador to Iran, Arturo Anibal Gallegos Ramirez:

“According to an agreement reached (between Iranian and Venezuelan airlines) for direct flights between Tehran and Caracas, Venezuela earmarked an Airbus 340 for this purpose, but this airplane was not given to Iran or presented as a gift to the Iranian friends.” TEHRAN TIMES —Preceding unsigned comment added by Persan en japon (talk • contribs) 16:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes this is correct I will removed this false information--@Discover10 05:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Discover10 (talk • contribs)

Scattered and Unorganized information

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear respectful editors,

I have found many of the paragraphs to include either contradictory informtion or too much information regarding a topic not very defining towards "Iran Air". Please take notice that topics such as the "Hotel Homa Group" have their own articles on Wikipedia, thus it is not neccessary to bombard the readers, who want to know more about Iran Air, with information regarding Hotel Homa issues and historical achievements.

As a personal suggestion, I also think it wouldbe better if we integrated the Iran Air Destinations into an organized chart. The destinations of Iran Air is directly related to the Airline, so it should be fully included in the article.

Sincerely, A fellow editor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iranian agent006 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Name

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Any references for the airline actually being called "Airline of the Islamic Republic of Iran" in English, or is that just a literal translation of the formal Farsi name? Jpatokal (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

To archive

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is so web.archive.org can pick up all of these SWF files It is odd that the Japanese IranAir pages are all using SWF files.

Specific pages in English:

Specific pages in Japanese:

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

>> Boeing reneges on Iran business pledgeLihaas (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Iran Air. 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.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 07:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Airbus Order

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I appreciate that we have some enthusiastic editors who keep adding recent announcements about future purchases to the current fleet table, please note that the sources show it is an agreement to discuss an order, NO actually orders have been placed yet. Unless you have a reliable source that says they have been ordered (which is not expected for a few months) then please note your edits could be considered disruptive, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Just to note that due to the previous sanctions Airbus and Iran Air were not able to discuss these orders so any commercial negotiations and the placing of firm orders has not taken place, thanks, refer http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/24/iran-plans-to-buy-114-airbus-planes MilborneOne (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/news-events-single/detail/iran-deal/ This is the news of airbus that Iran Air has signed an agreement with Airbus for the acquisition of the full range of new Airbus airliners (73 widebodies and 45 single aisle). This includes pilot and maintenance training and support services to help the entry into service and efficient operations of these new aircraft. Dashebram110 (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

An agreement "for the acquistion of" is not a firm order, it will take some talks first before the order can be placed. MilborneOne (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Iran Air orders

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There's been a recent fuss about the agreed purchase orders Iran Air has with Airbus should or shouldn't be added to the fleet list as orders. I did read the sources and it states "Airbus announced today that Iran Air has agreed to purchase 118 jets from manufacturer valued as much as $25 billion."[1] Even Airbus stated on their webiste with exact numbers what Iran Air agreed to order.[2] I therefore added those numbers and planes to the fleet list as orders.

There have been rumors about Iran Air adding used A340s to its fleet in 2016 for a fast replacements until the new aircraft get delivered. There were several articles on this but I didn't add it as it is not 100% confirmed even though it is really probable to be true.

As already mentioned the agreement is to discuss orders no mention of any orders being placed, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ [1] 6. February 2016
  2. ^ [2] 6. February 2016
I do agree and see your point. I don't think you should lock this article though, as everybody was trying to do his/her best to add quality content to it and we did solve the "issue" by discussing here. As This agreement is to discuss about plane orders could one theoretically see the current numbers as options? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolas Triebold (talk • contribs) 06:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Iran Air fleet table issues

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The fleet taable has some graphical issues on the right hnad side I'm to unexperienced to deal with them. Could somebody more experienced with it fix it please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolas Triebold (talk • contribs) 16:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have reverted to the earlier table per discussion above unless you can provide a reliable source that orders have been placed, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Reverted again [3]. Signing an agreement to purchase does not mean a firm order has been placed. I've also requested full protection again at WP:RPP [4] as this matter requires discussion here, not through warring.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for Our help, but the graphical issue is still there: The title sections seem to go a bit further out on the right than the normal lines inbetween which creates a small but high column on the far right that just does not please my eye. It is noticable on mobile aswell as on desktop view. Could somebody please fix it?
  Done Table formatting problem resolved. SempreVolando (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Iran Air. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 21:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Iran Air Boeing Order

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Good day,

The Boeing order announced on December 11, 2016 is a "firm" order and not provisional. Boeing's website (news section) as well as major reputable news agencies (Reuters, BBC, CNN, Associated Press) have confirmed the order to be "firm", however, some fellow editors do believe otherwise and have deleted the order size from the table citing it is provisional and not firm. Unless these fellow editors know something that the rest of the world doesn't, I encourage them to provide evidence, otherwise the table should be updated with the 50 737-MAX, 15 777-300ER and 15 777-9 new orders.

These fellow editors should contact Boeing's Investor Relations to get their facts. Boeing's Investor Relations will confirm that the orders were "firm" or they can get on the Boeing's Twitter account and ask their question there.

Many thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.251.107 (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply


Dear whoever

The FACT that you seem to be totally oblivious to is that there's a well-established consensus amongst the aviation community (not you) that any Boeing order is ONLY and ONLY considered to be FIRM when that order is stipulated and included on the Orders and Deliveries section of Boeing's official website. Now if you'd ever fully read Boeing's statement on Iran deal (I doubt it, I really do), then you would've been well aware of the FACT that Boeing states addition of recents Iran Air orders to the website section is subject to first clearing some CONTINGENCIES (Yeah difficult word for you). And the very next day Iran Air's Chairman made it crystal clear that finalisation of Boeing order takes place only when a certain amount of PREPAYMENT is made, thus not firm yet.

In a nutshell for you: WAIT till the order appears on pertinent section of WWW.BOEING.COM

Not so much regards Theeasytarget (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

User:Theeasytarget it is considered rude to shout on talk pages (that is using upper case words), also the consensus on Orders and Deliveries update (which is done monthly) only relates to the aircraft type articles not the airline. All you need here is a reliable source like a Boeing Press Release or Flight International. MilborneOne (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Boeing press release, as discussed here before, states that the deal will only come into effect after clearance of CONTINGENCIES. And you please stay away from matters unrelated to your business. Theeasytarget (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

You do not own this article - it is everyone's business. Karunamon Talk 20:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

No I don't own anything. But the people running this page sadly happen to be half-wits without the first clue as to what an airline article should look like. Very sad. Theeasytarget (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dear Theeasytarget,

You are offensive and rude. I have launched a formal complaint against you to Wikipedia Hierarchy. The individual posting the original subject may not have shared your opinion but the wording was polite, with tact and inoffensive. You however, went against all the rules set by Wikipedia for "Talk Page" and shamed that person and shamed yourself even more. I will be requesting your permanent ban from Wikipedia edit committee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.251.107 (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dear whoever

You are free to do whatever, but please don't do this on a dynamic IP which makes your 'formal complaints' rather amusing to start with. Theeasytarget (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Editing problem

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I can edit the beginning of this article, as far as the Farsi text beginning "217" in the Corporate headquarters section (the only use of 217 on the page, so easy to find). After that, my cursor will only sit at the extreme left of the page and whatever I type appears 25 characters in from the left margin.

Having asked at the Help desk this does not seem to affect everyone, but a work-around is to "cut" that reference, click "show preview", edit the page which is now "normal", and then paste the reference back into the Corporate headquarters section before saving - Arjayay (talk) 08:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Iran Air Tours / Homa Hotel Group

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

So it was suggested that these paragraphs of info erased in this edit are no longer relevant, since both of the companies are now independent rather than subsidiaries. Two problems:

  • Neither of those pages have any indication of a relationship, former or otherwise, with Iran Air.
  • Even if they did, it would be rather strange to not mention that here, even in passing, as part of basic company history.

Thoughts? Karunamon Talk 21:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply


Yeah good I agree. Someone please come up with a succinct and concise few lines about this damn thing. Previous paragraphs were unacceptable. Thanks.

Theeasytarget (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

You seem to have some familiarity with this company - do they have any active subsidiaries right now? If I were going to write anything, I'd probably restore that heading. Are there others that would merit that level of detail?

Karunamon Talk 21:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Homa Hotels Group was formerly a subsidiary of Iran Air but was long ago handed to Iran Social Security Organisation (SSO). The same holds true for Iran Airtour. Not sure who currently owns it though, but certainly not Iran Air. There are no other skeletons in the cupboard, not that I'm aware of. You write the piece and we'll build upon it if new subsidiaries are found.

Theeasytarget (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Okay, try my last edit on for size. Note that most of the internet apparently plagiarized Wikipedia for its info, (including Bloomberg, of all companies), and I wasn't able to get a cite indicating when Homa was transferred to SSO. The cite I did put in there just indicates that they're owned by them right now.

Karunamon Talk 22:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I tried it on and it fits perfectly well :D Cheers mate you did some great service to this page. Theeasytarget (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Edit War

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@YSSYguy:, @Theeasytarget: - both of you are well beyond WP:3RR at this point, and I'd like to personally ask that you stop reverting each other's edits again and again and hash out the details here instead. Encyclopedia articles kinda suck when they are wildly changing back and forth between two main versions, no?

What it looks like from where I'm standing, a lot of Theeasytarget's stuff, a non trivial portion of it, is WP:COPYVIO. It's gotta go, no matter how good it makes the article look. Sorry.

Karunamon Talk 01:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

OMG

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

YSSYguy, Theeasytarget, I did you all a favor by locking the article--it was that or blocking both of you, for edit warring, insults, etc etc. YSSYguy, if there is a copyvio you better do better than you're doing: point out where it is and where from. Theeasytarget, if there is a copyvio, which you seem to concede, there is no putting it back. Morever, Theeasytarget, you are this close to being blocked for personal insults and s****y little comments in edit summaries. Now work it out properly, both of you. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Drmies I don't care how close I am to what. Stuff this man was reverting was 95% my own work and research. You are being unfair and totally out of order by letting his stuff prevail. I won't back off, the fight continues in full force on January the 3rd. See you guyz then. Theeasytarget (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict)As far as the edit warring is concerned, fair cop; it seems that Theeasytarget is quite willing to continue after the protection expires. For the record, the changes that I have made that are being undone are as follows:
  • In the infobox: removal of "public subsidies" being a parent company - whatever that means - and "unaccounted for" also being a parent company
  • In the Lead: replacement of "Iran Air is also domestically known by its pre-revolutionary Persian acronym, Homa (Persian: هما), which is the name of a mythical Persian griffin too. (Huma bird)" with the previous text "Iran Air is also referred to by its Persian acronym, Homa (Persian: هما), which is derived from two sources: the initial letters of Iran Air's pre-Revolutionary Persian name, Havâpeymâyiye Melliye Irân (Persian: هواپیمایی ملی ایران); and from Homa, a mythical Persian griffin." The recent changes were just poor-quality and represented a degradation of the article, not an improvement IMO.
  • The arrangement of info concerning subsidiary Iran Air Cargo and former subsidiaries: no change in content, just a change in layout brought about by trying to wind back several dozen problematic edits.
  • In the Fleet table: reinstating 20 ATR 72s on order, for which the provided source states "includes firm orders for 20 aircraft"; reinstating a single A321 on order, for which multiple sources exist and two such were provided in the article.
  • Below the fleet table, removal of the text "As of December 2016, the exact breakdown of the Airbus order remains ambiguous. For instance, even though it is clear that 21 planes of Airbus A320ceo family have been ordered, no information regarding the exact type of the planes has been disclosed yet. The same ambiguity applies to the A320neo and A330ceo families." This information is not in the provided source and constitutes analysis by whichever User inserted it into the article.
  • In the Former fleet table, removal of the Concorde and reinstating previous text about the Concorde order; the Concorde was never in the fleet, so should not be included in a table listing aircraft that used to be in the fleet.
  • In the Accidents section: undoing of edits that removed pre-existing wikilinks to articles about several of the accidents for no good reason; that introduced copyright violations from the Aviation Safety Network; that used a Wikipedia article as a reference; that introduced spelling and grammar mistakes etc.
Theeasytarget replaced existing text about one accident (which contained a WL to an article with more-detailed information) with the text "On 21 January 1980, an Iran Air Boeing 727-86 passenger jet, registered EP-IRD, was destroyed in a CFIT accident 29 km N of Tehran, Iran. All 120 passengers and eight crew members were killed. The airplane operated on a flight from Mashhad Airport (MHD) to Tehran-Mehrabad Airport (THR). The aircraft had been cleared for an ILS approach to runway 29 at 18:52 hours. At 19:11 the aircraft crashed in the Elburz Mountains north of Teheran. The investigation revealed that the pilot did not follow the ATS route, but proceeded straight to Mehrabad Airport. About six minutes before impact ATC asked the pilot to make a 360 deg turn over Varamin Non-directional Radio Beacon (NDB). The pilot made this 17nm to the north without advising ATC. On approach the copilot pointed out VORTAC radial crossing on wrong track, but the pilot did not react." The text from the ASN web page about this event (https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19800121-0) reads "A Boeing 727-86 passenger jet, registered EP-IRD, was destroyed in a CFIT accident 29 km N of Tehran, Iran. All 120 passengers and eight crew members were killed. The airplane operated on a flight from Mashhad Airport (MHD) to Tehran-Mehrabad Airport (THR). The aircraft had been cleared for an ILS approach to runway 29 at 18:52 hours. At 19:11 the aircraft crashed in the Elburz Mountains north of Teheran. The investigation revealed that the pilot did not follow the ATS route, but proceeded straight to Mehrabad Airport. About six minutes before impact ATC asked the pilot to make a 360 deg turn over Varamin Non-directional Radio Beacon (NDB). The pilot made this 17nm to the north without advising ATC. On approach the copilot pointed out VORTAC radial crossing on wrong track, but the pilot did not react." This is a copy-and-paste copyright violation, even down to the mis-spelling of 'Tehran'.
Theeasytarget also added the text "On 5 January 1998, Iran Air Flight 378, a Fokker 100, departed Urmia (Orumiyeh) Airport (OMH) at 18:41 on a domestic flight to Tehran-Mehrabad Airport (THR). The flight was descending towards Tehran when the crew decided to divert to Isfahan. Weather conditions at Tehran were not suitable for a landing on runway 29. Visibility was poor in snow and sleet and there was a 20 knot tailwind. The flight positioned for an approach to runway 26 at Isfahan. There was fog in the area and the airplane descended until it contact a dry river bed, some 8 km short of the runway. The badly damaged aircraft was stored at Isfahan for while. The aircraft was then sold to Flight West Airlines (Australia) for spares and flown to Brisbane via Denpasar, Indonesia by an Antonov 124 on 11 September 1999. No injuries occurred." This is also a copy-and-paste from the relevant ASN web page (https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19980105-1).
Theeasytarget replaced text about the shooting down of Iran Air Flight 451 that included a wikilink to the main article about the event with "On 3 July 1988, Iran Air flight IR451 arrived at Bandar Abbas (BND) from Tehran (THR) at 08:40. The Airbus A300, registration EP-IBU, was to continue to Dubai (DXB) as flight IR655. Prior to departure the crew received an enroute clearance to Dubai via the flight planned route A59 and A59W at FL140. The flight took off from runway 21 at 10:17 hours and climbed straight ahead. Two minutes later, the crew reported leaving 3500 feet for FL140 on Airway A59, estimating MOBET at 06:53 UTC (10:23 Iran time). At 10:24:00 the aircraft passed MOBET out of FL120. At 10:24:43 the plane was hit by surface-to-air missiles. The tail and one wing broke off as a result of the explosions. Control was lost and the aircraft crashed into the sea. The missiles were fired by the US Navy cruiser USS Vincennes. It was operating in the area together with the frigates USS Elmer Montgommery and USS John H. Sides." This is also a copy-and-paste from the relevant ASN web page (https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19880703-0). I could go on with more examples; I managed to make two edits to re-write two entries with properly-formatted refs (here and here; and would have re-introduced information about the other accidents that did not have COPYVIO issues, but Theeasytarget's blanket reverting of everything I did today made that impossible.
The dispute seems to be over the unsourced analysis about the Airbus order and the Fleet table listing of the aircraft on order; as I said above, sources exist that this is the case, and my edits to the article reflected this. YSSYguy (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Reply


YSSYguy You were trying to revert all the contributions that actually were my own work. You were being indiscriminate and senseless in execution of what you thought was improving the page. The ATR contract is not firm. I sent you a link. ATR Reps are due to meet with Iranians on Wednesday to finalise the deal. And yes Airbus order is firm but as I stated in the article we DO NOT know the exact breakdown (A320 A321 A330-200 A330-300) hence it's not acceptable nor technically possible YET to list them as fleet orders. The first edit regarding the Homa griffin was actually made alot better by me you kept reverting it to old state which was grammatically wrong and too long-winded. Any sane person comparing the two texts would tell you it was greatly improved.

As discussed before you even realised there's something going on here, Homa subsidiaries bear little relevance to Iran Air at the moment hence the pertinent sections need to be as short and concise as possible. This is exactly what me and a fellow Wikipedian did. And I included a reference. No point going on about former subsidiaries for two full paragraphs. And the previous paragraphs were full of factual errors. There is no such thing as low-cost airline in Iran. Wikipedia is not a place for disinformation. Let's keep this part short and ACCURATE.

And for one last time I insist, ATR contract is not firm, here are some CITATIONS for you: http://www.aviationiran.com/2016/12/25/atr-visits-tehran-wednesday-finalize-iran-air-deal/#.WGOWaMt4Gf0 http://www.tehrantimes.com/news/409461/Iran-expects-ATR-deal-to-be-signed-next-week http://en.mehrnews.com/news/122277/Airbus-ATR-to-deliver-8-aircraft-in-coming-months

As you can see these are all well-respected sources of news. ATR contract is NOT FIRM. And we still do not know the exact breakdown of Airbus deal so no point listing them on the fleet table. Do you understand? What part of that don't you get? Ask and I'll help you.

And regarding the incidents and accidents, yes I acknowledge there was some violation going on but hey dear fellow Wikipedian help us by rewording/restructuring them so that they no more violate stuff. Don't destroy the improvements I made to the article, put right the things that need to be put right.

Theeasytarget (talk) 10:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wow, after being warned several times about personal attacks, you still suggest that I am insane. I have nothing to add until you start behaving in a civil manner. YSSYguy (talk) 11:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

See, you're losing this factual argument already, that's why each and every time you play the civility card. My argument is clearly the better one, one that's more compliant with Wikipedian standards and fits this article far better. And you, you have nothing but the civility card. You reverted all the edits that were my own work in collaboration with other Wikipedians. I will fight to keep them ALL on January the 3rd and you can do whatever you fancy with copyright violating material. And yes ATR deal is not firm. And Airbus breakdown is not fully know hence we cannot add them to the table yet.

Theeasytarget (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Protected edit request on 29 December 2016

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello! Recently, Iran Air has secured some deals with Airbus, Boeing and ATR, but the amount of ATR 72-600 and A321-200 in the article are wrong and some of the planes that have been secured in the contract haven't written in this article. This request is made by me to correct the errors that I wrote above. پارسا کشاورز (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

As this is an area of dispute you need to provide reliable cited sources of the actual numbers ordered before changes can be made. Suggest that a separate discussion would be better to agree any changes, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Changes to article

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Users need to come to a consensus on changes that were subject to debate before protection was provided, please note if agreement has not been found then protection may be extended to protect the article from further disruption, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Protected edit request on 3 January 2017

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please add the following non-COPYVIO text in the appropriate place chronologically in the Accidents and incidents Section:

  • On 9 June 1996, a Boeing 727-200 made its fifteenth touch-and-go landing in a series during a training flight at Tehran's Mehrabad Airport, with the landing gear retracted after the crew forgot to extend it. The aircraft slid for more than 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) along the runway; instead of allowing the aircraft to stop the crew lifted it off again and it circled the airport to return for a landing with the wheels down. While circling, a fire broke out in the aircraft's rear fuselage, damaging its flight control systems. As the aircraft neared the ground it rolled left; the wing hit the ground and the aircraft crashed in a field, killing four of the seven crewmembers on board.[1]

YSSYguy (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ Accident description for Iran Air Boeing 727-286 EP-IRU at the Aviation Safety Network. Retrieved on 3 January 2017.
  Not done for now: As you should know all additions will need to be agreed by consensus. Please reactivate when ready — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2017

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The EP-IRP incident had 77 fatalities, not 77 survivors. Bhabibi (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Done Thanks for pointing that out. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 January 2017

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The current fleet section includes the term "mainline" which is plain wrong in the context of Iran Air and needs to be removed from the sentence: The reason is 'mainline' is used to distinguish between regional and non-regional subsidiaries of a single airline and as Iran Air has no active regional branch, it is pointless to use this term. This phrase is NOT used to distinguish between cargo subsidiaries of an airline and the airline itself. It only applies to REGIONAL subsidiaries.

Here is a link explaining all this: http://flyavl.com/whats-the-difference-regional-vs-network-airlines

Remove the term "mainline" from the fleet section. Iran Air has no active REGIONAL subsidiaries. (As stated in the article itself) 84.72.17.133 (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

You haven't proven your case. From the Qantas 2005 Annual report: "These meals were supplied to three of the Group’s airlines – Qantas mainline, QantasLink and Australian Airlines"; Australian Airlines was not a regional airline, it was a subsidiary that operated Boeing 767s on international services. From a news story: "Lufthansa CityLine pilots are slated to operate a fleet of leisure-oriented A340-300s for parent Lufthansa...As part of plans to regain long haul leisure market share, Lufthansa will operate a fleet of eight reconfigured A340-300s on routes it was forced to abandon...CityLine crew are seen as the most suitable option given that their salaries are 20% less than those of Lufthansa's mainline operation." CityLine is not a regional airline. There are many more examples available, showing that the word "mainline" distinguishes a parent company from any subsidiary airline, not just a regional airline. YSSYguy (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

YSSYguy, You are presenting unfounded examples with no citations or sources whatsoever whereas I provided a link to a reputable website that is most definitely a reliable source by all standards set by Wikipedia.

Here's an excerpt of a book, again juxtaposing mainline against "regional": https://books.google.com/books?id=gBv0ejgJA-4C&pg=PA124&lpg=PA124&dq=mainline+airline#v=onepage&q=mainline%20airline&f=false

Another one: http://www.wingedwayfarer.com/regional-vs-mainline-a-flight-attendants-perspective/

Yet another one: (Forbes is a reliable source, isn't it?): http://www.forbes.com/sites/kathryncreedy/2016/01/27/regional-airlines-more-communities-threatened-as-partners-shift-flying-to-mainline/#5edcdf9a5228

One more: https://wn.com/Mainline_(flight)


Yes, if you sift through the entire internet you may come across a couple of incorrect applications of this term, but the overwhelming majority of sources and material available online (and offline) seem to agree on the fact that this phrase must only be used in contrast with "regional" airlines.

84.72.17.133 (talk) 09:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

We will not consider edits from block-evading users. Ever. --Yamla (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Apart from that, the IP Sock of User:Theeasytarget has not proven that the term mainline is used only in the context of airlines' regional subsidiaries. In contrast, Qantas 2005 Annual report quoted above, quote is from page 27; and ch-aviation story quoted above. Also:
  • From https://www.aviationstrategy.aero/newsletter/Mar-2009/3/Emirates_and_Etihad%3A_merging_paths%3F 'FlyDubai will operate independently from the main airline. The LCC will operate out of the new airport at Jebel Ali, but it could take passengers away from Emirates mainline, unless the route network is kept completely separate. While the destinations it will serve are yet to be announced, FlyDubai does say that it will operate to “the whole Middle Eastern region, North and East Africa, the Indian sub–continent and South–East Europe”.' FlyDubai is not a regional airline.
  • From http://aviationweek.com/awincommercial/air-france-klm-no-long-haul-low-cost-flights-now '“We now focus on the mainline [carriers] because we think that our first duty is to solve the problems of the [group’s] mainlines, mainly by improving their competitiveness problem,” Air France-KLM CEO Alexandre de Juniac told analysts on the group’s earnings conference call last week. “If you develop a long-haul low-cost, it’s very nice business, but it doesn’t solve your mainline problems.”' Again, not discussing a regional airline.
  • From https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/norwegian-convert-airbus-a321lr/ 'To date, Norwegian operates an all-Boeing fleet, comprised by over one hundred 737-800s and ten 787 Dreamliners spread across its mainline operation in Norway and its subsidiaries, Norwegian Air International and Norwegian UK.' Also not regional airlines
  • From http://aircanada.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1033 (an Air Canada press release) 'Along with today's launch of daily, year-round 787-9 Dreamliner service non-stop between Toronto and Seoul, Air Canada mainline has also started non-stop, year-round 787-8 Vancouver-Brisbane service that increases to daily beginning today...Air Canada mainline has also launched up to five-times weekly, year-round service between Montreal and Lyon, operated by a 767-300ER...Air Canada Rouge has begun operating seven new seasonal flights since May 19...operated with an Air Canada Rouge Boeing 767-300ER...Flights by both Air Canada mainline and Air Canada Rouge are timed to optimize connectivity with Air Canada's network.'
It is ridiculously easy to find specialist aviation industry publications and airline industry insiders using the term "mainline" in the context of differentiating parent or legacy airlines from non-regional subsidiaries. Perhaps the IP will argue that all of these aviation industry participants - including airlines - are misusing the term. YSSYguy (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Issues

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Not real great...

This article has many citation issues, as clearly shown by this photo I took of the article on one section. Any solution to fixing this, and getting more references? —JJBers 11:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Unreferenced text

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

@Gunpowderpowder: - I undid this edit because, whilst I appreciate your reasons for the deletion, by deleting the text it left a huge hole in the article overall. I note that most of the tagging was only two months ago. Far better to leave the text in so that editors can see what they need to be referencing. BTW, the 1944 date for the formation of the airline is referenced in the infobox, so I'll check that ref out and if verified move it to the main body of text. Other infobox refs may well verify text in the article too. Mjroots (talk) 08:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

It would seem that my hunch was correct. I've been through ref [1], and added some material from ref [2]. It looks likely that by going through all the refs, most of the text is going to be citeable. Mjroots (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
It did leave a hole in the article but that's why I alluded to a bottom-up rewriting of the airline's history. Even if the current text turns out to be fully verifiable (which is what you're striving towards right now), it's still a confused and messy piece of writing - exhibiting little cohesion and coherence from a linguistic vantage point. But point very well taken - thanks for digging out citations. Gunpowderpower (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
The Flightglobal archive is likely to be a useful source for what can't be verified from existing refs. Suggest restricting searches to a year at a time. Mjroots (talk) 09:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2017

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

ATR delivered 4 planes and not one. The table shows one delovery only.

http://www.atraircraft.com/newsroom/pressrelease/iran-air-takes-delivery-of-its-first-four-atr-72-600s-1437-en.html 199.198.251.109 (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please give a complete and specific description of the edit you are requesting. --Yamla (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2017

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

changing the ATR 72-600 Fleet from 1 to 4 and the Order from 19 to 16 Payam.zen (talk) 07:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

It appears this edit has already been performed by someone else. If you disagree, please be more specific in your edit request. Note in general, an edit request like this would not be performed as you are required to cite a reliable source when making or requesting a change like this. See WP:CITE and WP:RS. --Yamla (talk) 11:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2017

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

please add this link "https://financialtribune.com/tags/iran-air-news" to "See also" section. financialtribune is an iraninan newspaper which covers all news about economy of iran. Mohsen.nakhjavani (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: Please see WP:EL EvergreenFir (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2017

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The deal between Iran Air and Boeing should be taken into account in the fleet table in orders section. Amirhatami1000 (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. nihlus kryik  (talk) 10:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iran Air. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 22:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

About fleet information edit

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Iran Air fleet information on this page is entirely correct and is not based on the information of the planespotters.net, so they do not need to be edited.[1] W.nimanimaei (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/iran-air-ir-ira
edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iran Air. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iran_Air&oldid=1256682546"