Talk:United Airlines/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Bankruptcy/Reorganization

How many times has an owner of the United Airlines brand had to go through some kind of radical financial restructuring?

How many times did the employee pension funds have to invest in company stock? How many times did federal pension insurance have to bail out the employee pensions?

This article looks like a puff piece. DCDuring (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Why 3411?

Why is Flight 3411 the only event with its own subsection in the Accidents and Incidents section? It's rather unbalanced and seems to imply that 3411 was more significant than all other United Airlines incidents, including the 9/11 hijackings. It would seem a bit more balanced by adding subsections for at least 9/11 and Flight 232. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

+1. This section should be removed. Ua747sp (talk) 04:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Priorities with accidents and incidents

The priorities in the accidents and incidents section seem to be backwards; minor incidents get their own sections while major crashes aren't discussed at all. Do we mean to imply here that one injured doctor and a man defecating in an aisle or more notable than 9/11? Flight 3411 was mostly a PR disaster for UA, so it would probably be a better fit in the "concerns and conflicts" section. Flight 976 is just silly tabloid fodder. I have my own ideas of what flights actually should get their own sections (718, 232, 175, and 93), but I think it would be good to have a discussion on what does or doesn't belong. If there are no responses, I will go with WP:SILENT on this. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Spelling

Reference 10: "United Airliens, Inc. 2019 Annual Report (Form 10-K)". sec.gov. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. February 2020. Retrieved March 17, 2020.

Should be Airlines.

Thanks. Done! Larry Hockett (Talk) 05:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2021

United Airlines

Can Ergen (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Remove the "Privacy Concerns" stuff from "Concerns and Conflicts"

The privacy concern described in the United Airlines article was about cameras on the seatback screens. American Airlines, Delta Airlines, and Singapore Airlines were also called out for cameras on screens as well as United, meaning that Singapore, American, and Delta were subject to the same privacy concern as United. However, there is no mention of the camera concern for the respective articles of the 3 other airlines. Therefore to be unbiased and consistent, I suggest that you remove the "privacy concern" from the United article, unless someone adds the privacy concern to the articles of Singapore Airlines, American Airlines, AND Delta Airlines. Uscusd (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Controversy section

Just curious where is the controversy section? There has been many incidents such as the killing of pets and the breaking of gituars.

United has improved their operations since a dog incident in 2018, therefore there is now no need to introduce a controversy section. There is already a "concerns and conflicts" section Uscusd (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The Death of Engracia Figueroa

Well, this story broke last week, and I kinda feel like this is a big deal. Engracia Figueroa, an activist and advocate for disabled people has died after United Airlines broke a wheelchair that was specialized for her, and replaced it with a regular wheelchair that gave her infected sores and ultimately killed her. I feel like we should add this into the article, what do you think?

https://www.newsweek.com/disability-activist-dies-after-united-airlines-destroyed-her-custom-wheelchair-1646198 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-07/united-air-saddened-by-death-of-disability-rights-advocate --OrlandoApollosFan69 (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2021

In the Transcontinental section it lists transcontinental flights as only being available from Newark, San Francisco, Boston and LAX - this is out of date. United began offering transcontinental ps service from JFK in spring of 2021. Please add New York - JFK to the list of airports where this service is offered.

Additionally, the Environmental initiatives section has not been updated with recent commitments to net zero by 2050 - please add the announced commitment to 100% green (net-zero without traditional carbon offsets) by 2050 (announced in December 2020). Emckinnon8 (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Sources? Leomk (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 09:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2021

In the first sentence, please change "headquartered at Willis Tower" to "headquartered in the Willis Tower". "Willis Tower" is the name of the building, not a geographic location like "downtown Chicago" would be. 12.129.159.198 (talk) 05:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Beginning paragraph

In the introductory paragraph the bit that mentions their destinations should say all six INHABITED continents as I don’t see them operating to McMurdo any time soon 190.85.107.166 (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Easy enough. Thanks. Larry Hockett (Talk) 18:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Codeshare

Not really significant but put Vistara in as a codeshare there might be more 2601:249:A00:1370:0:0:0:132D (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Careful with editing, do not be a spokesperson of the airline but be a smart editor for Wikipedia

We must be careful what we are writing about. Are we writing about the company, United? If so, the company has changed over the years. The biggest change was the takeover by Continental in 2010. Are we writing about the United brand name?

We must be precise. We must not be stooges of the airline who decided that the United name was more recognized so that we imprecisely write about United as if it were the same thing as the 1929 airline. It's not.

Just be careful in editing, that's all. Charliestalnaker (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Minor Grammar Edit

Under Fleet > Fleet Strategy, the following sentence occurs: "The aircraft are intended to enter service with United in 2029 & are expected to be the first supersonic airliners to fly domestically for a airline since the Concorde was retired with British Airways & Air France in 2003.[65]" "A airline" should be replaced with "an airline." Unkeptsecrets (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Y MilborneOne (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Concernsa And Conflicts: Privacy concerns

That section should be removed. American Airlines, Delta, and Singapore Airlines were subject to the same privacy concerns, yet this topic didn’t show up on the respective articles of those airlines. To keep things fair, since it isn’t mentioned in the articles of those other airlines, it shouldn’t be in this article either. Also, the concern has been addressed via debunking, and that’s for all four airlines. 24.228.177.162 (talk) 03:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2022

Remove the COVID-19 section, which is written like an advertisement:

"In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, United Airlines took the bold step at that time, and required its employees to get vaccinated and got 99.7% of its workers vaccinated. This step was taken even before the Biden Administration mandated the COVID-19 vaccination." SpicyNerves (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done - the quoted text was also very closely paraphrased from the source. Alduin2000 (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Denver is #1

The intro paragraph states Chicago as the largest hub by departures and passengers carried, but Denver overtook that in 2021 (as mentioned in the hub section) 71.218.85.51 (talk) 06:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

#Cabin section needs cleanup

I think the #Cabin section of the page could use some overhaul. To give an example, I think the section should differentiate between the more modern Polaris seats (seen on all 767s, 787s, and most 777s) and the older style seats (still used on 757s and domestic 777s). DReifGalaxyM31 (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents, Flights 175 and 93

Is there a particular reason the only accidents/incidents in the "Accidents and incidents" section with descriptions is one of a drunk person and another of an injured doctor, when two incidents listed in this section include the 9/11 attacks (Flights 175 and 93)? It seems like if any incidents are written in detail, it should be at minimum the 9/11 attacks, whether because of undue weight or otherwise. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@TheGEICOgecko: I brought this up a while ago actually, but never got around to doing it. I suggested back then that Flight 3411 should be moved to the "concerns and conflicts" section, since it was more of a public relations fiasco for UA than an incident comparable to a major crash. Flight 976 is strange, but really more silly than notable. I most certainly agree that flights 175 and 93 should take precedence over the ones currently listed. Other ones for consideration would be Flight 718 (which led to the creation of the FAA) and possibly flight 232. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS: if there's no objection to including details about the crashes related to the 9/11 attacks, I will probably add it sometime soon. On Flight 718, I could not find any sources about the crash inspiring the creation of the FAA; notably, the articles on the crash and the FAA unsubstantially make this claim. If the information about the crash inspiring the FAA can be referenced, then it seems like details about it should be included. As for the other flights you mentioned, I probably am not knowledgable enough about the topic and the specific incidents to give a meaningful opinion. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@TheGEICOgecko: I found a few references in regard to the FAA. [1], [2], [3], [4]. Also, I've found that pings don't work if they're added to comments after they're signed. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS: I think the Time and NPR sources are good sources that go into details (however, the FAA source probably shouldn't be used, just for sake of avoiding using primary sources, aka FAA talking about the FAA). Also just a note, I think if/when the content on this crash is included, it should be made clear that the crash directly inspired the investigations that led to the creation of the FAA, though because the public demand for change was further fueled by other crashes, it is not the sole inspiration. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: NAS 348 Global Climate Change

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 1 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TotalSustainableFuture (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Maloqueiro99.

— Assignment last updated by TotalSolarEclipse (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

United Airlines & Climate Change

Aviation Fuel and its Impact on the Environment

Aviation fuel is essential in powering and operating aviation transportation. While necessary for every day use, aviation fuel has a detrimental impact on the environment due to the use of petroleum and release of greenhouse gases when operating engines. However, with innovation of Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) there is an attempt to transition to a more environmentally friendly alternative to aviation fuel. Conventional Aviation Fuel (CAF) has reached four times its demand since 2010. To reduce the demand of CAF and improve the quality of a more sustainable fuel, SAF is a comparable alternative. It is estimated that the use of SAF could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a median value of 74%. A type of sustainable aviation fuel is aviation biofuel which is the process of using biomass from plants and animal waste instead of petroleum and kerosene. A major pollutant, methane gas will be less prominent in the atmosphere if the animal waste manure is used in the production of SAF. If 170 new bio-refineries are built from the year 2020 to 2050 then it is estimated of a reduction of 63% of CO2 emissions. Turning to SAF can decrease the weighted impact that aviation fuels emit when powering aircrafts.

United Airlines Aviation Fuel & Recent Acts on Environmental Impacts

The United Airlines drafted their newest goal to reach carbon neutrality by 2050 by the act of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 100%. To achieve their plan the implementation of SAF is necessary to decrease the impact that CAF has on the environment. United Airlines has started the implementation of sustainable aviation fuel as they reach towards their 2050 goal of completely cutting carbon emissions. Within the airline industry a negative connotation promoted by consumers has forced flight shaming . Studies display the results that a more eco-friendly airline can be correlated to positive consumer satisfaction and consumer loyalty. With United Airline's 2050 goal and recent green initiatives as a company they can appeal to positive consumer satisfaction and build loyalty. United Airlines has taken part in a $100 million dollar fund called the "Sustainable Flight Fund" to invest in more sustainable jet fuel that releases less greenhouse gasses . Three of these companies are: Blue Blade Energy, Dimensional Energy, and Fulcrum Bioenergy and create jet fuel through elements such as ethanol, CO2, water, and landfill waste.

[Insert sentence to Environmental Initiatives for 2006]

In 2006, United Airlines recycled over 23.5 million pounds of combined paper, aluminum cans, and plastic to ensure proper waste distribution of materials within aircraft cabins .  

TotalSustainableFuture (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Ordering Hubs

I think we should order hubs by importance, in the order ORD-DEN-SFO-EWR-IAH-IAD-LAX-GUM . What do you guys think? VT-ALM (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

There’s been broad consensus across all airline pages that hubs should be listed alphabetically. The issue is that it’s hard to determine “importance” with verifiable, independent, reliable, secondary sources. RickyCourtney (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

That is a valid point. VT-ALM (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Ownership and structure error

It is listed on the Nasdaq not NYSE. Also it is not good structure to put ticker template inline with text. It is best to add it to Infobox airline under traded_as, e.g. {{NASDAQ|UAL}}. Svgalbertian (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Website link is a scam!

The website has been edited to a scam site. It is currently usflights.co/United which is a fake website, it should be United.com 153.106.211.9 (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Fixed it, thanks for looking out Ramos Can't hear you, TYPE LOUDER!! 03:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

BBB

The Better Business Bureau has given UA an 'F' for every search result I could find, including the Willis Tower location.

Would this be notable enough to include in this article? Jokem (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Apparently the 'F' rating has been scrubbed from the BBB site. All I see is an NR. Jokem (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

No one has responded so I will just say the BBB has given them one star. Jokem (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2024

In the See also section, please add:

* {{annotated_link|United Breaks Guitars}}

which renders:

• United Breaks Guitars – 2009 song series by Dave CarrollPages displaying wikidata descriptions as a fallback 136.54.106.120 (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: I don't think this makes for an useful external link. First, this isn't actually an external link, second, this link is already in the "Legal and public relations" section of the "United Airlines Holdings" Navbox, which is a better location for links to articles within Wikipedia. --TheImaCow (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Destinations table

What happened to the list of destinations table it's been deleted? CHCBOY (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Please bring back the UA destinations list. There is no other website that provided such a comprehensive and complete listing of United’s destinations, not even United.com! 2601:640:8300:1900:20A0:C63C:897D:6F71 (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

This was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United Airlines destinations, the result of the discussion was to delete the page. If you disagree, you may request a deletion review. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It was not obvious that the article was about to be deleted as there was no mention of it on the actual page header. Most people don't know where AFD are located on Wikipedia. So it ended up being deleted quietly overnight for most people. CHCBOY (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents

I noticed that the Accidents and incidents section is formatted into a table. Most pages for airlines usually have it in the format of a few paragraphs, or a table with specific information for each incident. Should the section in this article be changed? Sethcampbell7293 (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Changed it the other day along with a few other pages. I'm changing the way the Accidents and incidents for every airline is represented. The new way is cleaner and more organized. It also redirects to a separate category list for more in depth detail on the incidents. Funforme3 (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

United 2477 and United 35

Recently, there were two instances of United Airlines aircraft being involved in minor accidents ([5]UAL 35) and (UAL 2477). Do we include them in the table?

Also why is the accidents section formatted in a table; normally the accidents section is formatted into paragraphs, yes? LucsLee (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

No. These two incidents do not meet the minimum threshold of notability set forth at WP:AIRCRASH. As to why it's a table, I don't know. I know tables aren't preferred, but I'm not sure it's any better or worse than the prose format. RickyCourtney (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Roger that, thanks. LucsLee (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney ahhh ok I was curious as to why my edit was removed as it was technically notable incident that will probably result in a rebuild of the aircraft. After reading the qualifications of WP:AIRCRASH you're right. I wonder if there would be a better category use like aircraft incidents or accidents? Maybe both on the page?

I could also remake the table into a set of collapsible lists based on the table, would that be a good idea? Funforme3 (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the collapsible lists idea is great. The current one is not very easy to read nor is it all that accessible. LucsLee (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with changing up the format, but if the incidents don't meet the minimum threshold of notability set forth at WP:AIRCRASH, there's not a compelling reason to include them anywhere on Wikipedia. There are several "incidents" every week that get varying degrees of coverage. The point of the WP:AIRCRASH standard is to not get airline, aircraft and airport pages clogged up with these less important incidents. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

OK I reformatted the section to better present the data. Maybe this method would be a better standard to use for other similar pages. Funforme3 (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of this change. While I agree that these lists are better than the table, they don't add much detail.

Personally, I beleve that the gold standard format is a list with the date, the flight number (wikilinked to the incident page) and a brief one sentance description of the incident. Examples: SkyWest Airlines#Accidents and incidents and Alaska Airlines#Accidents and incidents. If it gets too long, they can be spun off into a standalone page like List of American Airlines accidents and incidents.

As I see it, the problem with the changes is that it left a lot of incidents with no explination whatsoever. For example, in 2020, we now list N816UA and N26123 with no links or explinations as to why those are listed.

I'd really like to see us focus on the list format instead. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Exactly why they are placed into a collapsible list with the flight numbers or aircraft registration. If there is an accident with its own page you can hyperlink to it and not fill a page so long with descriptions of each incident that it ends up becoming a big eye sore of garbage. The forward redirect in the top of the collapsed list is there with the text to tell readers for more detail of each incident and a more complete list to view the category list of accidents and incidents. Due to the way this has been I have been making and updating these lists including making new list pages for categories containing all the extra detail of each incident. This leaves it so any page linked via category of a new incident or page it is automatically added. Soo you might have undone the work I did on one page but it has a use and purpose. Many were asking for changes like this on a few pages and I obliged and received some thanks for the update. Funforme3 (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, the problem is that we are left with entires that just contain the aircraft's registration number and no further details for the reader. A single sentance is not an eyesore or garbage, it's a summary. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Fleet size

• SimpleFlying "well over 800" (2022)
• SimpleFlying "967" (2024)
• Airfleets.net "967" (2024)
• Flightradar24.com "1424", including subsidiaries (late 2023)

It looks verifiable, to my standard of evidence. Context matters when sourcing an article. If it's important to have a figure (and I think it is), 967 seems like an accurate one. John (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• Aviationwikiflight, are you in agreement that these sources are acceptable? If not, what sort of sourcing would you suggest? John (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hi, sorry for the late reply. So for the sources, SimpleFlying is generally unreliable, Airfleets' reliability is questionable so I wouldn't consider it reliable and as for Flightradar24, I don't have much of an opinion on its reliability though I would lean unreliable for topics like this.

  In my opinion, I feel like we should just cite the official fleet count coming directly from the airline itself as they publish these numbers along with their financial revenue: List of financial releases. Their most recently published release, [6], says that they currently have 1,369 aircraft in their fleet, which is where you can see the problem with these sources. SimpleFlying's, Airfleets' and Flightradar24's count don't seem to corroborate with United Airlines' official release count. So per United Airlines, 1,369 aircrafts seems to be the official fleet count. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)