Talk:Lufthansa/Archive 1

Archive 1

older comments

Lufthansa may be the largest german airline, and it used to be state-owned; but today it's a private enterprise. Does this still make it a "national airline"? -- Nils

Sliding Man

What is this man opening the door on the runway thing!? This isn't a serious incident. I think it should be removed. If this kind of thing qualifies you could list hundreds of incidents for all major airlines. newkai 02:56, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, I think that information looks very strange in the article. I have removed the paragraph entirely - Adrian Pingstone 19:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Destinations

There needs to be some mention of destinations in this article and how the airline sticks out from the rest of the competition in this area.

Lufthansa and A300B4

The article says that Lufthansa uses A300B4 models, but I have seen them using only A300-600R models in past few years, so this information is inaccurate. Does anyone know how many B4 and -600 models do they actually use?

According to the LH Fleet page http://konzern.lufthansa.com/de/html/ueber_uns/flotte/index.html Lufthansa uses only A300-600, not 300-B4. -- Nils Jeppe 8 July 2005 12:55 (UTC)

I´m sure that Lufthansa recently only operates A300-600 not B4! Dagadt

Formation of Lufthansa

As the company is celebrating its 50th birthday this year, I think it should be mentioned that 1955 is the year it was founded in. To my knowledge the pre-WWII company was a "different" company bearing the same name.

Miles & More

Miles & More should be merged into the Lufthansa article, and its other participants should have a note about it in their pages. The program isn't noteworthy enough to need its own article. Dbinder 23:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree, the Miles&More program is used by several different airline companies. It should remain a separate article. BTW: Separate articles for the British Airways Executive Club and American Airways AAdvantage exist as well. Do your want to merge them too? MikeZ 16:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I do think Executive Club should be merged. I have left AAdvantage alone for now. It's noteworthy since it was the first one. Dbinder 14:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree, as per MikeZ, especially now that SWISS is also part of Miles&More. Schutz 20:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree, as per MikeZ and Schutz. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 16:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree, as above Lars T. 14:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree, as above Bringo 08:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Flying Swan?

It says in the first paragraph that Lufthansa means "flying swan". It doesn't. As far as I know, there is a Sanskrit word - "Hamsa", which means swan. In German however, the only meaning I can conceive here is in connection with the Hanseatic League, as is written in the History-section. When I tried to edit this, it was changed back, so maybe someone else needs to make a change.

I changed the "German translation" sentence. In my opinion the reference to the swan is not correct, the bird in the company logo and on the aircraft tails is a crane. MikeZ 07:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The German cognate to "hamsa", btw, is "Gans" (goose). 惑乱 分からん 17:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I would also be interested to know about it. Which view is more authentic, Flying Swan or Air + 'another company name'? Anyone has any authentic information about this? Also, if me or you start an airlines company today, how will we name that? Air Yamaha, Air Google, Air Microsoft, or something like Flying Swan or White Goose. What makes more sense? Also, is there any confirmation anywhere if the author who designed their logo, indeed made a crane, and not a swan? Sobuj 18:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The name comes as a derivation of the Hanseatic league, a trade group back in the 12-1400's. The intention of the airline was to become an airborne version, hence the name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgw89 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC) what a lot of nonsense, why try and edit something in a language you don't understand and don't speak? ask a native speaker about "Hanse" - just a hint —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.213.8 (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Redlinks

Can someone clean these up because, though at first they may not appear excessive, im worried about the fleet sections, because somehow I think most pages about the fleet types exist. Thanks for your help DannyM 12:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Service to East Germany after WW2

It's unclear if the airline was banned from the whole country or just W Berlin after WW2, if anyone has any info please clarify. Propound 05:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Lufthansa was not specifically banned from flying to East Germany or Berlin. However, there was allied legislation banning german aircraft from a.) crossing the intra-german border, b.) flying into Berlin. Off course, this legislation applied to Lufthansa in the same way as it applied to a Piper Cub. So, before 1990, there was never a Lufthansa service to Berlin, however in the mid-eighties Lufthansa had a Frankfurt-Leipzig service on the occasion of the Leipzig Trade Fair. These flights did not cross the intra-german border, but flew into czech airspace then took a sharp left turn and headed to Leipzig. Service from Western Europe to Berlin was done by "allied" airlines like BA, Air France and PanAm with PanAm providing all services from West Germany to Berlin (650 weekly connections). The PanAm services were heavily subsidied by the West German government.

-- C. Deelmann 15:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Focus cities / secondary hubs

Berlin Tegel is definitly not a "focus city" in Lufthansa's route network. The only international routes are BRU and CDG. There are more international routes from Cologne!

I´d say Stuttgart Airport is a secondery hub of Lufthansa! Of course it´s a smaller focus city than Dusseldorf Airport, but it´s a bit larger than Hamburg Airport because of more frequencies! Dagadt

• This is not true. Hamburg has recently gained in importance for Lufthansa. It was the first airport to get the betterfly-fare concept with many new European destinations added at the same time. Nowadays, Hamburg even has unique destinations served by Lufthansa from no other airport, e.g. Bergen, Rønne, Bastia as well as Saarmelleek and Valencia which are only served from Düsseldorf also. Stuttgart, otoh, is not even close to a secondary hub nor is it a focus city, as it is mostly served by smaller aircraft with much less frequencies than Hamburg. FMB 17:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

BBJ

Can anyone give a reference to the BBJ that is in LH's fleet? I have looked for one and can only find the service operated by Privatair on behalf of LH. Which is duly noted in the Privatair entry. skyskraper 14:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the PrivatAir jet is not so much a plane in their inventory but a service they offer ... --- C. Deelmann 15:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Fleets in History Section

In the history section, it seems to list many, many instances of different planes being purchased. Do all of these purchases need to be listed? I understand certain purchases may be historic, but if so, maybe it should be explained why it is important? (e.g. Allowed flights across Atlantic, etc.) Other examples seem to be listed just for the sake of listing.Gittinsj 01:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)gittinsj

Zürich Airport

I've deleted Zürich Airport as a Lufthansa hub, for only SWISS uses it as a hub and although it is owned by Lufthansa it is run independently. Moreover, the section about Zürich becoming Lufthansa's third hub is mere speculation, as there have been made no official remarks about Lufthansa dropping the SWISS brand in favor of its own, nor LH offering flights out of ZRH to non-German destinations and therefore being qualified to be called a hub. FMB 17:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to venture a guess as to why ZRH was listed in the first place: on LH's website, they have on their information page listed as "Our hubs in Frankfurt, Munich, and Zürich ([1])". I'm guessing thats why somebody listed it in the first place. I was not the one who listed it, but I'm guessing this could be the reason why it was listed. Any thoughts? Neo16287 (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

ZRH is a secondary hub. Basketballoneten 18:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed routes

Hi! I´m fond of Airlines and you can say I´m an expert. So I want to propose Lufthansa a few routes. Unfortunately I don´t know to create a good table! So please help me! The routes are on my Userpage Dagadt. If you have create a table please insert it in the article (new section of course)! Dagadt

I don't think this is appropriate for an article that is supposed to give information on the airline as it is, not on how Wikipedia users would like it to be.DerGolgo 17:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ditto FMB 18:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the section, this isn't a fan forum.DerGolgo 00:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok...how I see you aren´t interested in Airlines. Your opinion is ok, but lots of people don´t think so! If you don´t trust me, ask other Users! Dagadt

Well this has no place in an encyclopedic article about LH. I see you have this on your user page and it is perfectly fine to have it there. However, this not being an appropiate section of the article aside, I would not agree with your proposals, let alone others. This fact would not make it viable to be included into the article, either. FMB 10:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Accidents

The 727 cargo plane lost in 1979 was not part of the LH fleet and - as far as I know - not operated or maintained by LH personnel. I am not sure if it should be listed here.--Kermecke 06:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

"The" Flag Carrier?

How is Lufthansa "the" German flag carrier? It is privately-owned, the German state has sold all or almost all of its shares. Sure, it carries the German flag on its planes, but so do Air Berlin and dba. There's nothing exclusive about that. Adhominem 09:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Look up Flag Carrier. It sums it up pretty much FMB 19:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm stupid... i thought lufthansa was an african name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.228.88 (talk) 12:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Accident vs Incident

There's two lists in the article with accidents/incidents, with many of the items being listed in both of them. As the Incidents lists is more complete I am renaming it to "Accidents and incidents". The Accidents list will be deleted and any information not in the Incidents list will be copied. Ma.rkus.nl (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Destinations

In the current Lufthansa magazine you can see on the route map that the airline serves Rio de Janeiro from Hamburg and Piestany (SLovakia) from Berlin. I never heard about that and you can´t buy these flights on lufthansa.com. Does anyone knows more ybout that? Dagadt (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Claim in article, that Lufthansa was always Hitler's favorite airline? So, what?

As seen in the documentary, Triumph of the Will, Lufthansa was always the favorite air carrier of Adolf Hitler and, later, was the official airline of the Nazi party (NSDAP).

I do have two concerns with this sentence. First, no sources are given. Second, what other airlines should Hitler and his Nazi henchmen use? British Airways? Even if sources can be found to back up those claims ("always favorite"), that still doesn't tell a thing about the airline and should therefore be deleted from the article. Any second thoughts from someone? Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for information: This claim was only recently added by an anonymous user, IP 216.170.232.106, from Madison, Wisconsin, USA, on November 29, 2007. MikeZ (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I say in the interest of fair play we give him 5 days to source it, and then if it isn't sourced, we pull it. It is true, who else would they fly? But is there really a need for that? Neo16287 (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont think if it was sourced it should be included as it is not really notable enough for inclusion, bit like saying his favourite country is Germany! MilborneOne (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

5 days are over, I just pulled that sentence. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Pictures On Right Side

Is it just me, or are there too many pictures on the right side of the page. I don't think there should be that many pictures clustered together one after another. Not only does it make the fleet table smaller, it makes the article longer and some pictures, I believe, can be removed or moved. Does anyone have any other thoughts?--Golich17 (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

economics related

look: [2] --92.113.10.111 (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Cabin Info

Does anybody object to my expanding on the section regarding cabin service as similar to other airline articles? Neo16287 (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. Planenut (talk) 00:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

B747-400 retirement or refurbishment?

According to this English article it is planned to retire the B747-400 in 2010 to 2012. According to the German article some newer B747-400 will receive PTV screens (and probably new first class interior?) and remain in service until most of the ordered A380 and B747-8 are delivered. (I guess that's longer than 2012, or would they really refurbish a plane only for 3 or 4 years more service?) --84.115.129.76 (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Fleet Info

Any objections the modification of fleet tables to include seating configuration as similar to other airline articles? Planenut (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The fleet table lists business class and economy class seat numers. These do not exist as a fixed value. The cabin is divided by a movable class divider (MCD), thus creating variable sizes of business and economy class cabins. Each row of 6 economy class seats converts to 4 business class seats, using the two outer seats, whereas the middle seat is turned into a small table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.137.87 (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Lufthansa executive offices

I wonder - Are the offices of the Lufthansa CEO and executives in Cologne or Frankfurt? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Based on the sources I saw, the executives work out of Cologne. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Lufthansa strike 2010 -- Can you help with my poor English?

First, sorry my poor English. I wrote this text, but User:Jasepl not able to accept my poor English and reverting my edit:

• Lufthansa strike by pilots will beginning tomorrow, 2010-02-22, due to LH pilots want job protection from those pilots from acquired subsidiries.

Can you help rewriting it? Thanks! --B767-500 (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Doesnt sound particularly notable, strikes are not uncommon in airlines. If it has a notable long term effect on the airline or its operations then it can be looked at again. MilborneOne (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The strike has been called off for now anyway. Lars T. (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hubs

Surely London, Brussels and Milan are not Lufthansa Hubs? There are only a couple of Lufthansa flights on each of them...

Hello! Yes, your are correct those cities are not hubs of Lufthansa itself , but of companies owned by Lufthansa AG. For Example Milan is a Hub for Lufthansa Italia and Brussels a hub of Brussels Airlines . This article discusses both the airline and the company which owns those airlines.--@Discover10 21:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

History before, during and after WWII

I feel this part is not clearly described (the link with the Luftwaffe in the pre-war period, the company serving mainly military ends during the war, the use of forced labor, the classification as a Nazi company by the Allies in 1945 leading to an effective arrest of activities and the liquidation in 1951). I unfortunately have no source but the French and German articles. Maybe adding a subsection "1940s–1950s: war and post-war years" could be an invitation to improvement ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.86.150.40 (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point, perhaps it may be better to have an article on the pre-1950s Deutsche Luft Hansa which can expand better on the history before is was re-formed in the late 1950s. MilborneOne (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Unidentified aircraft

Can anyone identify this Lufthansa aircraft (type) from 1927? Thanks, /Urbourbo (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Swedish text on the image states that it's an Albatros L 73. That article has the photo and states that it was taken at the opening of Stettin Airstrip. Mjroots (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Lufthansa Group in Africa

I found this corporate page about Lufthansa Group's activities in Africa:

• http://afrika.lufthansa.com/en/
• http://konzern.lufthansa.com/en/themen/africa.html
• http://afrika.lufthansa.com/de.html (German)

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Split

Luft Hansa and Lufthansa are two separate entities, in much the same way as the old Alitalia and the new Alitalia are. Therefore I propose that this article is split into two, with all info relevant to the previous incarnation of Luft Hansa being moved to that article. Mjroots (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Agree per my earler comment above from July 2010. MilborneOne (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Agree. I'm turning in after this, g'night~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Agree also! --Boeing747-412 (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• I have to agree as well. Even the article itself says that the "new" Lufthansa shares nothing but the name with the "old" one, so there is no reason to have this in the same article. Regards SoWhy 22:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

New article at Deutsche Luft Hansa, any help with content and links welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Lufthansa Group

I think it could be an idea to make an own page for Lufhansa Group/Aviation Group. As I understand Lufthansa German Airlines are a subsidiary. Not a parent company for all the subsidiaries. I would like to do it, but not without an approval. Jortseren (talk) 10:46, 2 MARS 2011 (UTC)

I do agree as for example Air France-KLM and International Airlines Group have separate pages, so Lufthansa Group needs one, however, if someone were not to approve it and then some people disagree it would cause problems. What suprises me is that no-one has replied to this since 2-March! --MJLRGS (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Accurate dates needed

Two places in the Alliances|Commercial section have incomplete dates: "On December 14 Lufthansa and American low-cost airline Jetblue... ...In November, Lufthansa and Austrian..."

Somebody please add the year to these 2 occurences. Casey (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Article Protected

I have protected the article from change due to an ongoing content dispute, can you come to some consensus on this page please. MilborneOne (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It's already two weeks now, and no discussion so far. Is the article protection still needed? AdAstra reloaded (talk) 09:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Once again, is there any chance the protection might be lifted again? There does not seem to be any significant ongoing discussion about the alledged content dispute. AdAstra reloaded (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Unprotected on the grounds that with no talk page discussion parties accept the status quo per WP:SILENCE 19:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from CeruttiPaolo, 4 September 2011

Noticed wrong wikilink format in Fleet History (Airbus A340-300) is: Airbus A340-300| the | shall be removed. thx and brgds. CeruttiPaolo (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from CeruttiPaolo, 4 September 2011

Lufthansa (31.12.2010). "Annual Report 2010". Retrieved 4 september 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
This source may be useful for the Corporate affairs and identity section, in particular subsidiaries. For example Eurowings is marked as owned 100% by Deutsche Lufhtansa AG over here. CeruttiPaolo (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added it next to Eurowings; hope this is what you wanted! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from JetBlast, 12 September 2011

On the fleet table please can you change the link from Airbus A320 Neo to Airbus A320neo. On this section of the A320 page its branded as A320neo not A320 Neo. This is also the same on this link from the Airbus website.

The below airlines also have it like this

• Air Asia
• American Airlines
• Cebu Pacific
• GoAir
• LAN Airlines
• IndiGo
• JetBlue
• Frontier Airlines

Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done, what about the A321 neo? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I didnt notice, sorry yes please can you do the A321neo as well? Thanks. --JetBlast (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :-) --JetBlast (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Airbus A380 Routes

Hi, Do we really need a list of the A380 routes? At the end of the day its just another aircraft. We dont have a list of routes for the 747-400 etc. --JetBlast (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion you are right. But as Seat configurations of the Airbus A380 is an article of its own, it looks ok to give the routes on the airline article, as the A380 currently seems to be such an iconic aircraft (like the Concorde). AdAstra reloaded (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Not needed it is no more notable then any other aircraft, most of the A380 section could also be trimmed and added to the history section. MilborneOne (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Tagging onto what MilborneOne said i also this the Aircraft Naming Conventions section about the A380 should be trimmed. Some parts of the article makes it sound like a plane spotting site. --JetBlast (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Brunoptsem, 22 September 2011

Add the following to Accidents and Incidents/Fatal

• 26 July 1979: a Lufthansa cargo Boeing 707-330C registration D-ABUY operating flight 527 from Rio de Janeiro-Galeão to Frankfurt via Dakar collided with a mountain 5 minutes after take-off from Galeão. The crew of 3 died.[3]

(Brunoptsem (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)) Brunoptsem (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This incident is already included in the article. Are you proposing to rewrite the paragraph with your version? If so, please explain why. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

747-400M missing

LH also have upto 8 of these Combi variants in their fleet, so thats 22 744 and 8 744M, please update list with information accordingly.Mustangmanxxx (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this ? --Denniss (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Very difficult to find reliable sources for this as most references dont bother to note that the aircraft is a combi. Original research indicates that D-ABTA, B. C, D, E, F are combis but I created the list by looking at the pictures to see if they have the cargo door which I am afraid is original research and not allowed.. In the end it may not be that notable. MilborneOne (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Currently LH has NO 744M, and afaik NEVER had any. LH Cargo operated the 742 freighter, but they have been replaced by a fleet of MD11 and 777F. --C. Deelmann (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure they never had any, at least those listed in my reply from eighteen months ago had the combi doors fitted, even if they were not used. MilborneOne (talk) 10:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Brand History without reference

The Brand history section is a matter of debate. The information present right now has a reference page cited to Lufthansa's page which has no information for the logo design and brand history. As such, the information being transmitted is incorrect. I urge the editors to erase this immediately. DBSSURFER (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That's because the website was changed (but not improved information-wise). Please do not try to get the brand history information removed beause you can't install your self-made brand history. --Denniss (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but the description talks about otto firle and puturzyn. Where does Lufthansa say about that? We are talking about the meaning of the word "Lufthansa" here. Not some crane logo dispute. And yes self-made brand history is yours not mine. DBSSURFER (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just given my reasons as to why I'm sure that the Hansa in Lufthansa comes from the Hanseatic Leage here. Once again, I can assure you that for a native German speaker (especially one with any affiliation with Hamburg or another Northern German city), there is just no doubt were the term Hansa comes from. Please note that Lufthansa indeed had that link to Hamburg. AdAstra reloaded (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

reference replacement

{{editprotected}} Please replace reference 25 with archived copy at http://web.archive.org/web/20091010130610/http://konzern.lufthansa.com/en/html/ueber_uns/geschichte/chronik/index.html --Denniss (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done Skier Dude (talk) 05:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Snoozlepet, 30 September 2011

On the codeshare section, Turkish and Asiana Airlines should be remnoved from the list as LH and both of the carriers are members Star Alliance and the sentence already mentions "besides Star Alliance members. Snoozlepet (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done MilborneOne (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request from JetBlast 5 October 2011

Hi. under Commercial near the bottom, is puts Iberia as Iberia Airlines. The Airline is not called Iberia Airlines its simply called Iberia. Please can this be corrected. Also please can you make the link like this: [[Iberia (airline)|Iberia]] - Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 11:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done MilborneOne (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Images in the Fleet section

Could someone make the thumbs smaller - the images block parts of the table and make it unreadable. BadaBoom (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

They look fine to me. What browser, screen size, etc., are you using? I'm using Safari 5.1.7 on a 11″ MacBook Air with a screen resolution of 1280 × 800. David1217 ^{What I've done} 16:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Also for me the images & table look both fine and perfetcly readable: Safari 6.0.1 on 13″ MacBook with 1280 × 800 resolution. --CeruttiPaolo (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The images use the default size which if you dont like you can adjust in the "My preferences/Appearance" tabs. MilborneOne (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed a couple the other day as we seem to have lots in this article. --JetBlast (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

LHT Redirect?

Hi, Why does LHT redirect here please? --JetBlast (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No idea it is not a TLA one would associate with the airline as far as I can see. MilborneOne (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Well i am glad its not me, i thought i had missed something. Maybe we can look at sending LHT somewhere else? --JetBlast (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

"Lufthansa German Airlines"

Really? Where is this officially used? --FoxyOrange (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

All over the "offical" Lufthansa website for example at http://www.lufthansagroup.com/en/service/contact.html MilborneOne (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, now I see. Thanks for that. --FoxyOrange (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I have just once again checked, and I have come to the conclusion that Lufthansa German Airlines is only rarely used, and always together/as a synonyme with the official Deutsche Lufthansa AG. I have amended the lead section accordingly.--FoxyOrange (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Founding date

The article states (in the infobox) that Lufthansa was founded in 1926. I think that's not right (even though the company itself claims so). I think we should point out the difference between the history of the brand and the current company of that name. In fact, 1926 is the date when the Lufthansa brand was created. This initial airline was liquidated in 1945. In 1953, a new airline was founded and acquired the Lufthansa trademark in 1954. Yet another airline of that name was formed in 1955, but later lost that naming rights. I think basically, it's the same as with Pan Am Railways: Surely, that company was not founded in 1927. Any thoughts and comments? --FoxyOrange (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

not that i don't believe you but do we have a source please? --JetBlast (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

For a start, have a look at Lufthansa's official history page (which, as stated above, begins with the 1920s). But, there is reads "And finally – in 1945 – came the “over and out” for Germany and for Lufthansa", and a bit further down "Almost at the same time, two companies named Deutsche Lufthansa took to the skies – one on each side of the Iron Curtain". Though not explicitly stated, I guess this proves that indeed in 1953 a completely new company was founded. Also, this new company was initially named Aktiengesellschaft für den Luftverkehrsbedarf (LuftAG, at that time a spare parts dealer, not an airline), and became Lufthansa in 1954. (this is per this news report (in German)). Furthermore (but I need to do a bit more research here), Lufthansa is a bit arbitrary about its past. On one hand, it claims to have a proud history which dates back to the 1920s. On the other hand, I think Lufthansa got out of any compensation payments for forced labor workers during World War II (which were "used" by Deutsche Luft Hansa), in contrast to other German companies like Siemens, BMW, Bayer and so on. Lufthansa's legal argument was that it had only been founded in post-war Germany. see here. Or at Der Spiegel: "Für die heutige Lufthansa hat nach eigenem Bekunden mit ihrer Gründung im Jahr 1955 eine neue Zeitrechnung begonnen. Formaljuristisch ist das nicht zu beanstanden." (English: Speaking in Lufthansa's own words, a new era has begun with the foundation in 1955[sic!]. From a legal standpoint, this is not objectionable.). Here, the launch of scheduled flights is used as start date, but it's clearly not 1926. --FoxyOrange (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

"Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Lufthansa) was founded in 1926 and was re-established after World War II, in 1953." ⇒ [4].--IIIraute (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but my point is that this "re-establishment" (whatever this is supposed to mean) was in fact a complete new founding. Today's Lufthansa is not the legal successor of the earlier company. It only acquired the trademark logo and branding rights. For example, RusLine bought the name and livery from Air Volga. Still, there is no legal link between the two companies. --FoxyOrange (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The infobox states: Founded 1926 (as Deutsche Luft Hansa) (newly founded 1953) - giving the according link to the predecessor company article - I think it's fine how it is. The Lufthansa legal successor matter is quite complicated → [5]. The German WP article also gives the date of 1926 [6]. --IIIraute (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

But in my opinion, the current situation is misleading and confusing. In the infobox, it states that Lufthansa was founded as Deutsche Luft Hansa in 1926, newly founded in 1953 and commenced operations in 1954; in the categories, the article is listed as "airline established in 1953". This looks quite inconsistent. Basically, there are two possibilities: Either taking the history of the brand approach, according to which Lufthansa was founded in 1926. That would be all, then (and the category should read "airlines established in 1926"), and there would be no need for a separate Deutsche Luft Hansa article, as it would be only one company (instead, something like History of Lufthansa (1926-1945) might be needed). The other approach (concerning the history of the legal entity, which I would prefer) would state in the infobox that Lufthansa was "founded in 1953 as LuftAG" and "commenced in 1954". In the text, it would be explained that the name and branding was taken over from the 1926-1945 company (more or less, this is the situtation of the current version of the article). --FoxyOrange (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Please note again (and excuse me if I should have been unable to properly point out the problem in my previous posts) that something needs to be done in any case. Most striking, the current version reads "commenced in 1954". This is just wrong, as the first flight of the "new" Lufthansa took place in 1955. Then, currently this tiny statement "founded in 1926" in the infox is the only part in any Lufthansa-related article which is in accordance with the abovementioned "history of the brand approach". The category reads "founded in 1953". I guess there is no doubt that this is a contradiction. If we just changed the infobox accordingly, nothing else would need to be done, as further down in the article it already reads While Lufthansa claims DLH's history as its own, it is important to note that it is not the legal successor of the company founded in 1926. If, on the other hand, one would chose to go with the "founded in 1926" point of view, a whole lot of other things would need to be changed, too. Most notably, this would mean that Deutsche Luft Hansa was not "disestablished in 1945", and much of it should not be covered in a separate article anymore. It's either all or nothing: If Lufthansa indeed was founded in 1926, the article should contain all pre-1945 accidents and incidents, pre-1945 aircraft types etc. Also, many Wikipedia articles specifically link to the "old Lufthansa". This would also needed to be changed, if one accepted that there was only one company. I hope that by now, I could make my point clear and appreciate your input.--FoxyOrange (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Lufthansa) was founded in 1926[7] and was re-established after World War II, in 1953. →[8],[9]← see, Mini and Mini (marque), for example. --IIIraute (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

No. Once again: The company founded in 1926 was shut down in 1945 and the remaining assets were liquidated in 1951. The company that was founded in 1953 was originally called Aktiengesellschaft für Luftverkehrsbedarf. In 1954, it acquired the Lufthansa name and logo (something similar happed with Pan American World Airways and Pan American Airways (1998–2004)), and in 1955 commercial flights commenced [so at least this "commenced in 1954" should be corrected]. This is quite well covered by Der Spiegel in a "Lufthansa: 50 years of flight" article, published in 2005:[10]. The crucial point is that the company now called Lufthansa was founded under a different name. Therefore, the statement that the pre-1945 company was "re-established after World War II, in 1953" is plainly wrong. At that time, what today is known as Lufthansa was called Aktiengesellschaft für Luftverkehrsbedarf and had zero legal affiliation with the pre-1945 company. Indeed, today's Lufthansa considers the pre-1945 brand history as its own, but there is no legal obligation [and this article seems to be about the company, not the brand]. Today's company is not the legal successor of the former one (and from a legal point of view, there is nothing like a "new founding" of a company, either a company is founded or it has never ceased to exist). And the old Lufthansa indeed has ceased: If you happen to still own shares of the pre-1945 company, they are completely worthless now. --FoxyOrange (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Basically, you want to ignore the date given on the Lufthansa website, as well as "WP:RS" like "Forbes", etc ... so how do you explain the dates that are given in the German WP "good article"? --IIIraute (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, no. All I want to point out is that there are several things: A German airline from 1926 to 1945, then a company founded in 1953 that became known as "Lufthansa" in 1954, yet another airline of that name and, finally, something which so far is not represented by a Wikipedia article: Lufthansa (brand), which was created in 1926 and used by these three different companies. As I pointed out above, Lufthansa has the habit of picking the best parts of the brand history (in order to define the company as one of the famous European pre-war airline), but the nasty parts (like the Nazi involvement of the pre-1945 airline) are ommitted. And indeed, from a legal point of view, the latter is right [and Lufthansa often points out that it cannot be held responsible for any Nazi crimes], because today's Lufthansa is not affiliated with the pre-war company.--FoxyOrange (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Just because it is on the Lufthansa website doesn't make it correct. The Facebook page also managed by Lufthansa doesn't agree with the website. Just because an article is a good article does not mean it is perfect and is free of mistakes, just because the German version is a good article cannot add weight to the argument. Anyway Wikipedia encourages to use 3rd party sources when you can, rather than a primary source (in this case the LH website). --JetBlast (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, but maybe the fact that there are dozens of other WP:RS that state the same fact →[11] - so I guess you will have to live with it! --IIIraute (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry no, it depends on the outcome of this discussion, so in the end you might have to "Live with it" --JetBlast (talk) 06:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

An attempt to prove the "Lufthansa was founded in 1953" thesis

I did some research. Here is what I got so far. The source is in German, so I am going to translate the important parts. [Content in square brackets] are my annotations. The Lexikon der Luftfahrt (Encyclopedia of Aviation) [12] has a timeline:

• 18 January 1926: Deutsche Luft Hansa Aktiengesellschaft is registered in Berlin.
• 20 September 1945: The "Allied Control Council Act No. 52" is issued. The whole property of Lufthansa as well as the private property of any employee listed as "officer of official" is seized, due to the paramilitary role of the airline during WWII.
• 15 February 1951: At a special shareholders' meeting it is decided to liquidate Deutsche Lufthansa, dated back to be effective 1 January 1951.
• 29 May 1951: The Federal Minister for Transportation establishes a "Committee for the Preparation of [Civilian] Air Traffic".
• 6 January 1953: The Aktiengesellschaft für Luftverkehrsbedarf (abbreviated Luftag, lit. "Air Trafic Requirements Inc.") is founded in Cologne with a seed money of 6 million German Mark. Shareholders are the Federal Republic of Germany, the state of North-Rhine Westphalia, Bundesbahn and Bundespost, among others. This company is not the legal successor of the old Lufthansa. [This is the most important statement here; also note that until today, Lufthansa is therefore registered in Cologne (which can be seen in its official imprint: "Registration Amtsgericht Köln HRB 2168"), whilst the pre-1945 airline was registered in Berlin, see above. So, it's obvious that we are speaking of two entirely different companies].
• 26 June 1953: Luftag orders its first airplanes, four Lockheed Super Constellation [Please note that the company is not named Lufthansa yet].
• 6 August 1954: Luftag adopts the traditional "Deutsche Lufthansa AG" name. The naming rights had been acquired from the old "Lufthansa AG in liquidation" for 30,000 DM, including the crane logo and flag.
• 1 April 1955: German domestic flight (re-)commence, initially based on a special permit; the German souvereignty over the airspace is only re-installed on 5 May.

In my opinion, this is already enough to prove my point. Again, I appreciate your thoughts and comments. Of course I am aware that there are many reliable sources which support the "Lufthansa was founded in 1926" counterthesis, but what I listed above are quite hard facts. I am not aware of a single source that claims that today's Lufthansa would be the legal successor of the pre-war company. Best regards--FoxyOrange (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Your interpretations and conclusions very much fall under Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources. The "Lexikon der Luftfahrt (Encyclopedia of Aviation)" is a tertiary source, and therefore should not be used in place of a secondary source ("Forbes"[13], for example) or a primary source (such as the Lufthansa AG company website[14]) for detailed discussion.

The lead states the following: "Deutsche Lufthansa AG is the flag carrier of Germany". Although Lufthansa may not be a direct legal successor of the German airline flying between 1926 and 1945 of the same name, the company does regards itself as the official successor company, serving as the official flag carrier of Germany (1926-now). [15] Deutsche Lufthansa AG was founded in 1926 and was re-established after World War II, in 1953.[16] After the war, Germany was occupied by the Soviet Union, the United States, France, and Britain. Under the conditions of the occupation, both East and West Germany were forbidden to establish their own airline companies. British, French, and American airlines had a monopoly on air service in West Germany, while the Soviet airline Aeroflot assumed all air services in East Germany. By 1951, the reestablishment of a national airline for West Germany was proposed. The following year, the West German government in Bonn set up a preparatory airline corporation, and on January 6, 1953, Luftag (Aktiengesellschaft für Luftverkehrsbedarf) was created in Cologne. Member of the executive board: Kurt Weigelt who already was among the founders of Lufthansa in 1926.[17] Hans Bongers, who joined Lufthansa in 1926, was reinstated as director of the national airline. Lufthansa was "Reborn"[18], and also paid WWII compensations → "Erinnerung, Verantwortung und Zukunft".[19]. And sorry: In 1926 "Deutsche Luft Hansa AG" was located in Cologne - and "Deutsche Lufthansa AG" still is.--IIIraute (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Illraute, I very much appreciate your input. Still, I don't really understand your point. We seem to be in accordance that Lufthansa considers itself the successor of the pre-war airline, even though from a legal point of view, it is not. (Take, for example, the compensation payments. I have to admit that my research was insufficient here. Lufthansa indeed did pay these compensations, but the article you gave as a source clearly states that there was no legal obligation to do so. Lufthansa acted out of morality reasons). And you also seem to agree with me that today's Lufthansa was founded in 1953, originally called Luftag. This is backed by reliable sources, so it's not original research. And now I ask you: Why do you insist that Deutsche Lufthansa AG (the subject of the Wikipedia article we talk about here) was founded in 1926? This article is about the company, not the brand. And it's not about the term "German flag carrier", either. Anything else you wrote in your above reply (except the claim that the 1926 company was based in Cologne - do you have a source for this?) is right. Today's Lufthansa was originally state owned and established because Germany should again have a national airline. Many of its early staff members had already worked for the old Lufthansa. So what? Still, the two companies are not related other than that they share the same name.--FoxyOrange (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

"Am 6. Januar 1926 wird deshalb die "Deutsche Luft Hansa AG" mit Sitz in Köln gegründet."[20] --IIIraute (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but this source got it wrong. The original Lufthansa was indeed founded in Berlin, for example [21].--FoxyOrange (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

P.S. The article above also points out that the liquidation of the company in 1951 was nothing more than a legal formality to secure the continuation of the "Deutsche Lufthansa AG" without being tainted by its own past. Therefore liquidation and decision to "reestablish" the airline the very same year.--IIIraute (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. The company founded in 1926 fully ceased to exist in 1951. In 1953, a completely new, unaffiliated company was founded.--FoxyOrange (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Check the title of this book: "Die Geschichte der Deutschen Lufthansa 1926 - 1984 " (The History of Deutsche Lufthansa 1926-1984) → [22]. --IIIraute (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

My tuppence (ha'penny)

Flight 1952 "The old Deutsche Lufthansa was founded in 1926 by the amalgamation of Junkers Luftverkehr and Deutsche 'Aero-Lloyd. D.L.H. operated an extensive network which included a regular South Atlantic mail route; the company was dissolved at the end of the war"

Flight 1965 "the original Deutsche Lufthansa was founded in 1926" but also "The reconstituted Lufthansa re-entered the European transport scene on April 1, 1955"

Flight 1969 "In 1945 it was obliged to suspend all its operations (although it was not officially liquidated until 1951). .....It was not until the spring of 1955....that the new Lufthansa was able to start flying." (italics are my emphasis) GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Outcome

By evaluating this discussion, I have come to the conclusion that there are no objections against the claim that Lufthansa (today's company, i.e. the legal entity, NOT the brand etc.) was founded as Luftag on 6 January 1953. That's why I changed the date in the infobox accordingly (also, WP:BOLD applies, and I have not been aware of a significant number of editors with a contrary opinions: Illraute, I just think I have the better arguments). Every company has exactly one founding date, in Luftag's case this is clearly 1953 (Luftag just wasn't founded in 1926 - nobody has ever claimed so). I tried my best to explain why today's Lufthansa sees itself in the tradition of the earlier company. Feel to find re-word my humble efforts. Best regards--FoxyOrange (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Certainly not - no consensus for change! For sure, it is not reconcilable with WP:RS to ignore and remove company information published by the Deutsche Lufthansa AG[23] or Forbes[24]. This information is backed up by dozens of other WP:RS, such as an official agency of the European Union (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions)[25], Columbia University Press[26], or the BBC[27]. I am sorry, but you cannot remove well sourced material just because it doesn't fit your argument. Especially since you are deleting well sourced material from a long-standing NPOV version. The infobox does mention both dates: "Founded 1926 (as Deutsche Luft Hansa) (newly founded 1953)." --IIIraute (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

For the record: I did not remove the self-published Lufthansa source, as it shows that Lufthansa indeed sees itself in the tradition of the 1926 airline. You are right that I removed some sources and added other ones, like Der Spiegel or Flight International, which are also reliable. The case is that those sources you give just have a generic "founded in 1926", without any in-depth investigation of the founding history. I'm not aware of any source that gives 6 January 1953 as founding date of Luftag, but still goes on to claim that Lufthansa was founded in 1953. This is exactly what I want to point out all along: That often, the "history of the brand" approach is chosen (according to which Lufthansa was indeed founded in 1926, no question whatsoever). But this very Wikipedia article is not about the brand. It's about the current company. And therefore, sources must be found which tell the history of Luftag. Finally: Please note that as it stands now, the whole article supports the "founded in 1926" version. The category reads "Airlines established in 1953". There is the sentence "While Lufthansa claims DLH's history as its own, it is important to note that it is not the legal successor of the company founded in 1926.". Both have not been added recently, but are longstanding, accepted parts of the article. Only the infobox had this double 1926/1953 date. And yes, this is not acceptable to me, because it should be one company, one founding date. In order to explain the special situation at Lufthansa, I added the footnote. My edit was properly sourced, and it is the only logical possibility (because the company founded in 1953 is still around today, whilst the 1926 airline had by that time already been liquidated). Therefore (and — as you also might have missed — I had changed a few other things, too), I have reinstated the "founded in 1953, explanation in footnote" version. Best regards--FoxyOrange (talk) 06:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

As I don't want to let this drift into an edit war, I will not do any more edits to the infobox for the time being. For a better documentation of my edit, I give you the sources which I think quite well establish my point: Flight International (English), Der Spiegel (German) and Lexikon der Luftfahrt (German). And this is the text I had intended to be displayed as a footnote following the "founded in 1953 statement":--FoxyOrange (talk) 07:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The company that today is known as Deutsche Lufthansa AG was founded as Aktiengesellschaft für Luftverkehrsbedarf (Luftag) on 6 January 1953. It sees itself in the tradition of Deutsche Lufthansa, the former German national airline that was founded in 1926 and liquidated in 1951, whose name and logo it acquired in 1954. Therefore, Lufthansa frequently gives "1926" as its founding date, though from the legal point of view, it is not the assignee of the earlier airline.

Until we can decide what to put i have removed this as per WP:BOLD. It is impossible for a company to be founded twice. We can put it back when we decide whats happening. In the meantime i have asked an admin to look at this. --JetBlast (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Per FoxyOrange, the two airlines are/were separate entities. The Lufthansa website cannot be used to claim otherwise as it is not an independant third-party source but a primary source. Mjroots (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

But what if there are other WP:RS that support Lufthansas' own claim - just ignore them? → → Forbes[28], European Union (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions)[29], Columbia University Press[30], BBC[31],[32]. --IIIraute (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, these can be ignored. There is a reason, which I have stated above, but which you, IIIraute, does not seem to acknoledge. So, here it comes once again: One can either consider the Lufthansa brand (which was created in 1926, no doubt whatsoever), or the current company (that is, the legal entity). This very Wikipedia article clearly is about the company. The sources I provided in this discussion (and which User:Mjroots refers to) prove that the company today known as Lufthansa was founded on 6 January 1953, that it acquired the "Lufthansa" name only in 1954 (aircraft had been ordered earlier), and that it is not the legal successor/assignee of the pre-war airline. These references all have feature length with a significant depth of the analysis, and there is not a single source which claims something different (e.g. that Lufthansa were the legal successor of the pre-1945 company). Your sources (Forbes, BBC, etc.), though, mention the founding date only in a passing, trivial manner. As I pointed out above, there is indeed some confusion because Lufthansa itself gives 1926 as its founding date. It is only natural that "1926" is therefore taken up by other media. But Lufthansa has obviously chosen the brand name approach. It's sort of a business philosophy to display a long tradition. But this is not relevant for this Wikipedia article (that it, to the "founded in" item in the infobox), because it adheres to the company approach.--FoxyOrange (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as someone not previously involved in this conversation – it does not really seem that uncommon for a company to try to push back its founding date and claim the history of another company after purchasing it or just reusing its brand name. Sources that are usually considered reliable are often willing to go along with such a manoeuvre, perhaps sometimes just to save the effort and space needed for explaining the details of the actual situation (or perhaps because they didn't bother to learn the actual details or just don't really care about the issue). In my opinion, Wikipedia should try to resist that sort of spin and ensure that the actual situation is made clear. And it seems pretty clear at this point (as described above) that the company currently known as Lufthansa is not the company founded in 1926 (regardless of what some sources may say). —BarrelProof (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

More sources to be considered

A quick search in a source that I often use mentions that the company was founded in 1926. Notwithstanding, the history of the company is also worth reading. A discussion similar to the one presented in the article is followed. To me, the current company was founded in the mid fifties, although the company traces its roots back to the mid-twenties.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It would appear that the current airline was formed in the 1950s but takes up a history of the brand that goes back to the 1920s. As we already have an article on the earlier Luft Hansa it may be better to put a 1953 start date with a note similar to the suggested by FoxyOrange further up. MilborneOne (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I didnt know that! In my opinion Deutsche Luft Hansa should have a start date in the 1920's and Lufthansa to be 1953. --JetBlast (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Subsidiaries

In the infobox, there is a long list of presumed Lufthansa subsidiaries. Per the respective Wikipedia article, this term defines "a company that is completely or partly owned and partly or wholly controlled by another company that owns more than half of the subsidiary's stock." Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I guess only those companies should be listed, in which Lufthansa indeed holds a majority of the shares?! Surely, JetBlue Airways and Luxair are not considered Lufthansa subsidiaries? Also, Lufthansa Technik and LSG Sky Chefs (and maybe others?) should be listed there, as these are wholly owned (and btw Lufthansa Technik is abbrevated LHT, which seems to solve the above "mystery of the redirect".) Cheers, --FoxyOrange (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

JetBlue Airways and Luxair are not, they are just shareholders you are correct. I removed some hubs from other airlines from the info box before. --JetBlast (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

For the hubs, Lufthansa's website lists Vienna and Zurich as hubs for the airlines but in reality they are not as LH fly to 4 destinations from those cities. Vienna is a hub for Austrian Airlines and Zurich is a hub for Swiss International Air Lines (in which both are subisidiaries owned by Lufthansa). This information is about the airline itself not the parent company. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I performed an update from the last Lufthansa Financial report. --CeruttiPaolo (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Fleet images

Hi, A while back I removed some images from the article. All of them where just images of aircraft. Pretty much the same as others in the article. I removed them because they are just placed in the article to take up empty space and being decorative. For users who have a slower internet connection these type of images make the article load slower, not everyone in the world has high speed broadband. Also users with smaller screens, it can mess up how the article is displayed. I really don't see the point in having 8 Lufthansa aircraft all in the same area, they all pretty much look the same. The user WorldTraveller101 reverted this and i have reverted back. Judging from his past activity on 2 accounts he just keeps edit waring and doesn't bother with talk pages. He just keeps reverting to get his own way. So I wanted to see what others thought? Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, I don't see the need of placing an image for every aircraft in the fleet. I'd prefer showing images of long-haul aircraft, but that's just my likening. Three pictures are enough, that's for sure.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

For the record, following the removal of these images, the article now lacks visual identification for the Airbus A340-600 (of which Lufthansa is the largest operator) and the Boeing 747-8 (of which Lufthansa so far is the only operator of the passenger version). Concerning these two types, I think images are indeed needed (as long as there are images in a sufficient quality, of course). I would even go as far as to claim that it should be favorable to have one image of any aircraft type that is/was operated by an airline for a considerable amount of time. Therefore, photos of the Airbus A300, Airbus A310, Boeing 737-100/200, a Boeing 747-100/200 and possibly others in Lufthansa colors should be included, as Lufthansa operated considerable numbers of these types, which clearly shows a significance for the aviation industry. Adding such images is not just decoration, but informative (the article must not be slanted towards current aircraft types, as notability is not temporary). Of course, when the article gets too long, certain content might be reorganized at something like History of Lufthansa, but in my opinion article lenth should not be used as an argument against adding images. On the other hand, currently there are images of Air Dolomiti, Air Malta and Lufthansa Cityline aircraft in the Lufthansa article. Indeed, these seem to be purely decorative and therefore should be removed. As a side note, I am much more concerned about the large number of aircraft images added to some airport articles, which do not seem to add any value to the article (as they do not contain any information about the airport itself). It is by no means favorable to add an image of any airline that serves a certain airport (take Frankfurt Airport as an example). --FoxyOrange (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I did remove a poor quality 747-8 image. Any aircraft that is unusual or not very common should be on i agree but not endless images of 737, A320's 747's etc. There are a few old aircraft images already in the article. --JetBlast (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for comments concerning the year Lufthansa was founded in

There is an ongoing dispute over the founding date of Lufthansa. See RFC-section at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Germany#Request_for_comments_concerning_the_year_Lufthansa_was_founded_in to add your comments. GermanJoe (talk) 08:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Please change logo from http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/2/27/Lufthansa-Logo.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.179.19.224 (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Better sources needed for several Lufthansa hijackings

Hi all, I just went through the "Hijackings" list, flagging all incidents which only have a single reference, an entry at the Aviation Safety Network. As this website is essentially user-generated, other sources to back the ASN info are needed. Unfortunately, I did not succeed in finding anything these incidents in any other sources during a quick search. Therefore, these (minor) hijackings might be regarded non-notable as well. To be fair, I have to add that I believe that I added those to the Lufthansa article myself some time ago.--FoxyOrange (talk) 08:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Is the designation "flag carrier" still correct?

I've just reverted an edit by which the lead statement "Lufthansa is the flag carrier of Germany" was removed. I feel that this should be discussed first (per WP:BRD). According to Wikipedia, a flag carrier "enjoys preferential rights or privileges accorded by the government for international operations." Is this still true? If so, what are Lufthansa's privileges? In any case, please note that the ownership status (whether being state or privately owned) is irrelevant here. Best regards--FoxyOrange (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

"German flag-carrier Lufthansa appears to have cancelled orders for three Airbus A380s."[33] --IIIraute (talk) 12:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but is this really sufficient? I mean, are we really listing airlines as "flag carriers" simply because a magazine has called them this way? This source is also used at the flag carrier article to justify Lufthansa being listed as such, but come to think of it, all we can extract is that "even though not being state-owned anymore, Lufthansa is still frequently identified as German flag carrier." The question remains: What are the alleged "preferential rights or privileges"?--FoxyOrange (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:OR to me. There are literally hundreds of WP:RS describing Lufthansa as the "flag carrier", "national carrier", or "national airline" of Germany. --IIIraute (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• To make my point perfectly clear, I think that Lufthansa is rightfully called "flag carrier of Germany" (which is why I reverted the edit that sparked this discussion). The only thing is that, come to think of it, I cannot say why this should be true. Obviuosly, I have encountered a problem with the definition of the term "flag carrier" and have therefore just initiated another discussion about this broader topic.--FoxyOrange (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The matter is that a reliable source backing up the content is enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Nevert thought about that, but I assume that the source above (I added it to Flag carrier, BTW) has checked all the conditions mentioned.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Having recalled that previous argument between me and User:IIIraute, I once again explained the matter using a footnote. Cheers--FoxyOrange (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is your definition of the term flag carrier ⇒ "an airline that is or was owned by a government, often with the name of the country in its name", like "Deutsche Lufthansa AG", for example. (Definition of flag carrier noun from the Cambridge Business English Dictionary © Cambridge University Press)[34] --IIIraute (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, since I had been the editor who restored the "Lufthansa is the flag carrier of Germany" bit, the burden was on me to find a reference for this statement. Note: It's indeed no problem to find a source calling Lufthansa "the German flag carrier", but in order to prove that Lufthansa is the German flag carrier, I encountered the question: "What makes an airline a flag carrier, after all?" I was unsure whether I should follow the Wikipedia definition (flag carrier=privileged airline) or if I should simply follow "flag carrier= airline called as such". Similar to the question "When was Lufthansa founded", there is no simple answer (or rather, the answer is a matter of debate), which is why I added an explanatory note.--FoxyOrange (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

An explanatory note is fine with me, I actually like them a lot. Nevertheless, the one you added has no sources.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I placed two refs directly behind the footnote (one for "today, Lufthansa is (still) called flag carrier" and one for "until 1994, Lufthansa was the German flag carrier, no doubt whatsoever"). Technical question: How do I put refs inside footnotes? Is this possible at all?--FoxyOrange (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I've done it for you. Please check that that is what you wanted. You may practise with the other note inside the infobox --Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again; now I'm feeling somewhat silly because there hasn't been any problem putting refs into footnotes. For the past half year, I had somehow been under the impression this wouldn't work. How strange.--FoxyOrange (talk) 07:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)