Talk:LOT Polish Airlines

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

anyone know when LOT stoped flying to DTW. Lklk 19:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOT's Callsign[edit]

I believe that LOT's callsign is Pollot, not LOT.... I've seen it as Pollot, but never as LOT.

AIM95 19:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)AIM95[reply]

This is incorrect. http://www.airlinecodes.co.uk/airlcoderes.asp
ICAO 4444 (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's POLLOT https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/7340.2J_Chg_1_dtd_10_10_19.pdf --47.54.35.57 (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's 'LOT' now according to FAA anyways https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/7340.2K_CHG_1_dtd_12_31_20.pdf --47.54.85.227 (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fatalities--"all on board"?[edit]

When the article gives the number of fatalities, and follows that with "all on board" does that mean that everyone on the plane was killed? Or does it mean that all the people killed were on board? (Since a plane crash can certainly kill people on the ground.) 140.147.160.34 (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza[reply]

The term all on board is as you say everyone on the aircraft was killed. The term all on board is used to indicate both crew and passengers. Normally if they are others killed on the ground it would be mentioned. MilborneOne (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucidity[edit]

What is it mean: With the arrival of the Boeing 767-200/300ER, LOT began serving trans-continental destinations to Chicago, Newark, and New York, instead of the Tupolev Tu-154M and the Ilyushin Il-62M.

??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.56.15.137 (talk) 13:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents and accidents section: cleanup requested[edit]

I have placed a cleanup tag at the top of the section, as it should be shortened so as to include deadly or hull-loss accidents only, according to WP:AIRLINE guidelines. Events such as the recent gear-up landing are not notable as per the aforementioned guidelines; it has already been removed--Jetstreamer (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Please note that WP:AIRCRASH are the guidelines that are to be applied here. There it reads: "Accidents or incidents should only be included in airline articles if [...] The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport." As far as I can see, in today's accident the aircraft was substantially damaged. It is true that the event is not notable for a separate article, but noteworthy to be included in the airline article. Therefore, I cannot see why any incidents should be removed from the list. That is to say, can not rely on any guidelines here). I think those are terrorist/criminal events, for which I do not now the notability guidelines (actually, noteworthy guidelines, as again it's not about creating articles). But in general I think that events surrounding the airline should be covered. --AdAstra reloaded (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Of course, as long as LOT Flight 16 exists (and so far, there is no deletion discussion), it has to be included in the LOT article (though, as I said above, I don't think it's notatable enough for a separate article). AdAstra reloaded (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at the guidelines that apply here.--Jetstreamer (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The incident in question was not backup with any sources so it should be removed anyway. --JetBlast (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An IP editor using multiple IPs is repeatedly reinstating the (minor) incident. I'm over my WP:3RR now, but you can bet I will remove it as soon as this limitation expires.--Jetstreamer (talk) 00:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I think it's quite riddiculous to have a mentioning of Flight 16 removed from the LOT article, as long as there is a whole separate artice on that subject. And come on, it is obvious that references exist. Just add them if you think they are missing. AdAstra reloaded (talk) 07:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft naming[edit]

I have removed a new over large section on aircraft naming (twice) but it has been added again, as the addition has been challenged then User:Gnesener1900 needs to establish a consensus before readding it (adding it back for the third time is a bit naughty). I expanded an image caption showing the name on a nose of a 767 to explain that three of the 767s are named after Polish cities but it clearly is undue weight for a large section on naming policy when only three out of 40 aircraft have names. Naming aircraft is not that unusual or encyclopedic and a note of the naming scheme on the fleet table or a single sentence or image caption is enough. It is really up to Gnesener1900 to gain support for the addition of a large section on the matter, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hijackings to Berlin-Tegel[edit]

This is in response to User:Marek.47's claim that there had not been any LOT hijackings to Tegel. Yes, there were. For a start, take this new article from 1970, which mentions the incident of 19 October 1969. All hijckings mentioned in this Wikipedia article have at least one source. If anyone is still in doubt: Please just let me know, and I will do some deeper research work. --FoxyOrange (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please edit this logo from http://dlapilota.pl/image/view/5109/_original — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.179.19.224 (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eurowhite[edit]

It's sad to see 'Eurowhite' being increasingly used in wikipedia. So far as I can tell, there is no formal definition of the term; it does not refer to a pantone shade (as a reader might assume), but appears to be a lazy way of saying an airline livery is "predominantly white like a lot of other European airlines". This kind of jargon is almost acceptable in fan magazines, where the great majority of readers will (probably) know what it means, but it is not appropriate for wikipedia. If there are editors who would like to use the term, may I suggest they set up a page with the meaning and history of the term, and its usage in the industry. A quick Google search found plenty of discussion, but none of it appeared particularly reliable. You may have more luck. Heenan73 (talk) 10:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[added:] - I have just found an attempt to explain Eurowhite in a sandbox: User:Targeman/Sandbox Heenan73 (talk) 10:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are right; a wording like "mostly/predominantly white" is more suitable, as it is immediately understood without any further knowledge. Another possibility (as you have just suggested) might be to create Eurowhite (likely as a section at Aircraft livery), but my impression is that the term indeed is not used in any official publications.--FoxyOrange (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gay freiendly[edit]

http://warszawa.gazeta.pl/warszawa/1,34862,15923350,LOT_zaprasza_do_podrozy_do_miejsc_tolerancyjnych_.html#LokKrajTxt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.70.80.5 (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on LOT Polish Airlines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV - privatization[edit]

The privatization section is not neutral at all. It links airline's better financial results with the change of government in Poland and cites prime minister of Poland who suggested it was thanks to their policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A311:425D:ED00:D1EC:C2F6:ABF7:3E60 (talk) 12:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LOT has leased A321s,B734 and B738 due to groundings[edit]

Someone keeps removing what I put in the fleet. I track LOT flights daily and I notice some new aircraft which aren't on Wikipedia.I add the aircraft and it gets removed. IFlyPlanes (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because we dont normally list aircraft that have been wet-leased as part of the fleet. MilborneOne (talk) 12:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

737MAX orders cancelled.[edit]

Who put this? 'LOT will not receive any of the 7 planes ordered of the type' This is so fake. LOT never even thought about cancelling the MAX orders. 

IFlyPlanes (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Number of seats in each cabin class in narrow-body aircraft.[edit]

I noticed that this article lists a specific amount of seats for each cabin class for every aircraft, including narrow-body aircraft. I looked through LOT's official website and checked the article for short-haul aircraft. An image appears a bit down on each page, and clicking on it will open it. Every one of these images have these two sentences:

"For domestic flights LOT Economy Class only"

"Size of LOT Business Class, LOT Premium Economy and LOT Economy Class is flexible and depends on the number of passengers"

Here are the sources (the images are on each of those pages and all of them have the two sentences quoted above):

Embraer 170: https://www.lot.com/pl/pl/embraer-170

Embraer 175: https://www.lot.com/pl/pl/embraer-175

Embraer 190: https://www.lot.com/pl/pl/embraer-190

Embraer 195: https://www.lot.com/pl/pl/embraer-195

Boeing 737-400: https://www.lot.com/pl/pl/boeing-737-400

Boeing 737-800: https://www.lot.com/pl/pl/boeing-737-800

Boeing 737 MAX 8: https://www.lot.com/pl/pl/boeing-737-MAX-8

Despite the official LOT website not including articles for the Bombardier CRJ700 NextGen, CRJ900 NextGen, and De Havilland Dash 8-400, I think that the same principle applies to them. I'd request changing the precise number of seats for each cabin class that we currently have in the "Fleet" section to something like "var." (for "Varies") or "flex." (for "Flexible"), since technically, there is no precise number of seats listed.

EnjoyingMyProblems (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Destination - Cologne/Bonn[edit]

I noticed Cologne/Bonn isn't listed as ever being a destination for LOT but there's a fair bit of evidence it was at one point.

This online transcription of the Oct 1996 Official Airline Guide lists it as a destination:

http://www.departedflights.com/WAW96p1.html

And airliners.net shows several examples of LOT aircraft present at the time.

https://www.airliners.net/search?keywords=lot+polish+cologne&sortBy=datePhotographedYear&sortOrder=asc&perPage=36&display=detail

I plan to add it to the list unless this wouldn't count as enough evidence, but I believe it should. Viero223 (talk) 04:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LOT_Polish_Airlines&oldid=1212773022"