Talk:AirAsia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

Hi there. There was talk on some forums about listing the good company information new or future employees need to know, such as benefits, very important details like Staff Travel, housing, pay, etc, here on Wiki for prospective employees (for expat Flight Attendants, Pilots and Engineers, specifically). When is that going to occur? It would be a great addition, plus from an investor's view it gives them more to go on when infusing capital. Thanks for considering this suggestion.

Is this company related to the one mentioned in the article? — Instantnood 16:02, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I think the ultimate arbitrator of article title here should be what the companies official name. Under what name is it actually registered?
Peter Isotalo 13:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Move decision

There was a request to move this at WP:RM, but the proper procedure was not followed. Please refile again and follow the procedure outlined at WP:RM#Instructions if moving the page is still desired. Thank you! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Laos

I could not find any evidence of AirAsia flying into Loas, Vientiane or Wattay International airport. As such, I have removed Laos from the list of destinations. It looks like this might have been a mistake when it was originally included (as there was no information on city or airport code). However, if you believe this is incorrect, then please update it. -- S Masters 05:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

RM1.99

I changed the minimum price of flight from RM10 to RM1, see these: http://www.google.com.my/search?q=airasia+promotion+1.99&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official http://www.airasia.com/news.php?f=aboutus/press&p=20050721

First contribution to wikipedia, sorry :p

--C-Fu 09:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

The article is in a bit of a mess right now, its informative in some areas, while in other areas it sounds a bit crufty. I'll admit I dont know much about this airline, but I'll see what I can do in regards to cleanup, some assistance in cleanup from editors or workers of this airline would be appreciated. --Arnzy (whats up?) 08:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Basically i've clean up the mess inclding transfering some topics to new article. But more clean up needed,after that ,we should start to rate this airline article.okay?

Fleet

according to the infobox AA has 50 planes. but in the article it says they have a total of only 33 planes (14 airbuses and 19 boeings). which is correct? --Kawaputra 09:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AirAsia logo.png

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

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Malaysia-China flights

I've deleted the line about Kota Kinabalu being the hub to China. I saw a new route from KL to Shenzhen on Airasia website. Who knows if KL might be the hub? More passengers travel from Kl anyway.Wai Hong 00:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Staff

I'm interested to help out. And I am new to contributing to Wikipedia. Where do we start? --Zulismadi 15:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

We always welcome help especially from an insider of a particular company. You can help out in many sections, like history, maybe number of fleets, etc. Just one thing to bear in mind, all information must be based on verifiable sources. WP:V. Have your sources ready and you may go ahead and start editing! Welcome to Wikipedia, Zulismadi. --Zack2007 (talk) 03:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "perth" :
    • [http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/5/15/nation/20080515131703&sec=nation AirAsia offers free seats for KL-Perth], last retrieved 17th June 2008
    • [http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/5/15/nation/20080515131703&sec=nation AirAsia offers free seats for KL-Perth]

DumZiBoT (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Section

AirAsia#Criticism seems to be made up of original research which should be removed as per WP:NOT but there are some snippets which are notable. Any opinions? Planenut(Talk) 11:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

ya man. i also doubt there is a real consumer advocacy group called "Fly Air Asia? Not Me" aka FAANM. i googled it and found a only a blog. the references which links to the blog are definitely unreliable. plus it seems to have been written in bad tone. ќמшמφטтгמtorque 11:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The criticism section shouldnt be removed but rewrite based on complaints and public views.Jannisri (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
A rewrite seems to be the consensus. Will start working on it soon but I foresee the first section being summarised to a mere paragraph as much of it now seems to be from a self-published source which contravenes WP:SPS. Planenut(Talk) 05:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Here's an update. I went through the entire first section (AirAsia Safety & Cost Cutting Questioned by Consumer Advocate) and decided to remove it. Nothing notable on it was worth keeping; the source of the information was from the blog which is purely original work. However, the second section is worth keeping but it has to be rephrased entirely. Planenut(Talk) 03:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Destinations

This section is in a utter mess with poor grammar. If there is no objection, I shall start work on it bringing it to wikipedia standards. Planenut(Talk) 22:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airlines/page_content do not post flight schedules aka frequencies. Most of the material posted under AirAsia#Destinations is not encyclopedic and per What Wikipedia is not. Could this editor who keeps undoing the changes please chime in here? Planenut(Talk) 10:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm agree with the poor grammar in this section after I compare with the old version. Something that i suggest is should we consider to use a box for the information? By addition, I'm disagree with deleted the destination that launched within this year, I'm suggest to rewrite the info in a standard so that easier to understand. Should we add on addition flight in wikipedia? I would like to listen more suggestion. If there is no any objection, I will start to edit it few days later.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Maninter (talk • contribs)
Thanks for responding. We should improve the article using the template guide from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airlines/page_content. Unless those destinations are significant, we should not be listing them down. Take a look at other airline pages - Tiger Airways, Ryanair & Jetstar Airways. They don't have tables of every new destination started and neither should this article. The AirAsia_destinations page is more than sufficient. Planenut(Talk) 10:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
We seem to have a problem with an IP editor who constantly reverts this section to versions with bad grammar and attacks other users at the same time. Planenut(Talk) 11:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Future plans covers routes that have been planned but not launched yet or new routes that have been announced but not in operation yet. Malacca & the 3 Indian destinations are not being launched in 2008. Please do not revert it back to New route coming in 2008. Moreover, the grammar used is wrong. It should read new routes (route is singular but there are more than one) but either way it does not suit the context. Read the reference articles again before making knee jerk edits. Thanks. Planenut(Talk) 11:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Seems the IP editor is more out there to cause trouble than rather help contribute, as attempts by other editors to contact him/her has been ignored and he/she keeps continuing to undo and attack editors who disagrees with their edits. I would probably suggest a longer ban, but it seems they are on a rotating IP --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 01:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Seems they are back again, but looks like since they're on a rotated IP, we may have to look at protection for this page. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 02:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Requested for semi-protection yesterday, only action taken was blocking of IP user. Planenut(Talk) 03:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Seems the IP is pretending to play "innocent", but its clear the IP editor is NOT dumb and clearly knows how to rotate IPs. He's recently changed his IP range and started again. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 04:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
J.delanoy has set the article to semi-protect for 2 weeks. Good call. Planenut(Talk) 05:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Presumably this section should only contain current destinations? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Advertising

This article seems like a blanket advertising. 202.156.6.54 05:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that much of the article tries to show AirAsia in a good light when it has many shortcomings. The shortcomings have to be balanced against the highlights of the airline in order to give a balanced picture. When there are at least 8 victims of AirAsia's double debiting due to its faulty online booking system and there are first-person accounts of refunds taking between two to four months then you don't need a newspaper reference to include it in the article on AirAsia. I refer to the following paragraph that was removed by Eraserhead1:

  • AirAsia has been the subject of numerous complaints over its delay in refunding clients who had been debited twice due to double bookings for a same flight.[1]

and that I am putting back.

I agree, I will put an advertising tag on this article. Trythisonyourpiano (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I removed the debiting claim as you didn't provide a reliable source to backup the claim. Frankly it sounds a little over the top. 8 people getting incorrectly charged for flights out of 100 million passengers (check their website) doesn't seem like a particularly big deal. On the advertising claim I haven't read through the article for a while so <shrug>. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I really think there is something wrong with your reasoning above (that 8 people getting incorrectly charged for flights out of 100 million passengers doesn't seem like a particularly big deal). With that type of reasoning, a few thousand passengers who died due to the faulty maintenance of an airplane is also no big deal, I suppose, statistically speaking, when there are billions of people in the world. And that if you have one foot in iced water and another foot in boiling water, then you should feel quite normal! (Kindly do not remove these remarks but leave them for the record and for a healthy discussion although you do have certain powers beyond that of the common contributor.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.207.55.191 (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

1000 deaths would obviously be worthy of including in the article. 10000 people with a credit card issue would too (and we'd have sources too). Its just that credit card issues for 8 people are really minor and not worthy of inclusion without a reliable source. I also don't have any powers beyond a common contributor. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
On the article being like an advert the AirAsia#The_airline_and_disabled_passengers looks to be undue weight the other way. Its vastly longer than the same content on Ryanair#Customer_service. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "AirAsia Takes Customers For A Ride". 17 January 2011.

The airline and disabled passengers

This section appears to have to much detail and overwhelms the article, propose that it should be trimmed down per WP:WEIGHT to a few lines as at the moment it is nearly as big as the history section. MilborneOne (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, seems to be allot of detail that isnt really needed. --JetBlast (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I have trimmed it back to the major points, it was in 2007 and is probably still not that notable. MilborneOne (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

AirAsia X Information

Hi,

There seems to be some duplicate information that talks about AirAsia X. For example in the fleet table there are many aircraft in there that are operated by AirAsia X and not by AirAsia. Should this be removed? Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes the fleet section really needs a trim to remove the other airlines that have articles, it should just be the AirAsia fleet. I have removed some the extra AirAsiaX info. MilborneOne (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Do you think i should press on and remove anything that is covered in the airlines own article? --JetBlast (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
There should be a WP:SUMMARY here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Fleet Renewal

This is tagged as possibly written in too 'promotional' a manner or as a news release. Reading it that does not seem to be the case as most of it is a chronological history. As to orders, if something has been ordered it's been ordered. There's no real possibility of balancing that. Thoughts on removal of tag? PRL42 (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I've removed the tag as it hasn't been discussed here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


Logo AirAsia

Air asia changed its logo on their website, twitter, and on their Facebook page since December 28, 2014

edit infobox : logo air asia gray --Photomaltese (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

article : http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/12/28/airasia-confirms-unusual-flight-path-greys-out-logo

Gray logo is temporary due to current incident. The red logo is the corporate badge and should be retain.

AirAsia Group

As we appear to have some confusion about affilitates and such like perhaps the AirAsia Group should be spun off from the airline article, thoughts? MilborneOne (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

"Most dangerous airline".

I've started this thread in response to a recent edit war and a comment left on my page. Better to do the discussion here where it belongs.
An infrequent editor, whose only edits over the last few months have been on the AirAsia article, added a comment that AirAsia was the world's most dangerous airline. I removed it, with an edit summary of "not from an authoritative source". The newspaper being cited was quoting airlineratings.com , which is not an official aviation body, but rather a compilation of info from various sources. For us to take this claim seriously, it will need a reliable source such as IATA, or an investigative body like the US NTSB.
The editor was invited to discuss the info on this talk page, but instead continued to defy warnings and was eventually blocked. They then set up another account to try and circumvent the block. They also claimed that they were being censored by being prevented from adding this info.
I do not consider this info to be reliably sourced, and until it is, it should be excluded.
Incidently, they have also been repeatedly adding info about flight 8501, which has been previously excluded from this article as it is about another subsidiary. Again, the same claims of censorship have been made, which makes we suspect a conflict of interest on the part of this editor.--Dmol (talk) 06:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I make no comment at all about flight 8501. I would argue, and have not disputed, that the editor in question has edit-warred, once using a sockpuppet. But the critical point of difference, IMHO, is that he does not in fact state that AirAsia is unsafe; he states that the airline has been reported as unsafe by a national newspaper, and in saying that this newspaper report has been made he is correct. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 10:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dmol:@Anthony.bradbury: First, I'd like to apologise for "edit warring". I'm obviously a novice on Wikipedia and do not know the proper channels to resolve an editing dispute. But I do believe the edits I made to the page was both accurate and quoting a reliable source. As Anthony Bradbury has stated, I have not claimed the airline to be unsafe. My edit states that it has been reported unsafe, which is correct, and quotes the report. I do not wish to dispute on the reliability of airlineratings.com, except to point out that it is owned by The West Australian, another national newspaper. I would like to restore my edit if there are no objections. Jermzc (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jermzc: As a newbie, you were unaware, so given that you have understood what you had done, it's a pretty good start . Given that the incident is related to Indonesia AirAsia, it may still not be worthy of including it in that article as well. My question here is, how did the news agency come to a conclusion that it is the dangerous airline? How did they evaluate the same and how did AirAsia stand out in their analysis? Did any international aviation organization, IATA, ICAO involve themselves in the analysis? The article here states that it is an Australian website that has done the analysis and as per this website's analysis, Qantas, the flag carrier of Australia is the safest airline. So, how sure are you that there is no bias in their analysis? Also, given that the accident investigation of QZ 8501 hasn't concluded, stating that a defective aircraft was used for the journey is not appropriate. — LeoFrank  Talk 17:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
@Anthony Bradbury: If stating that the newspaper reported has mentioned that airline is safe, how are we ensuring that the info is genuine and not adulterated or something that is just made up? While I do not disagree that it is present in a newspaper article, the source of this article seems pretty unreliable. So, is it still right to include the same? — LeoFrank  Talk 17:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@LeoFrank: I believe quoting a widely circulated national newspaper should definitely be allowed in Wikipedia. Such publications risk their reputations and potential libel suits, and have processes to ensure that the reports they publish are accurate. If Wikipedia does not even allow this, are we to question every newspaper, journal and magazine that is quoted? Instead of removing the edit completely, let readers decide for themselves if they can trust the report. It may be that you do not, but I do and many others certainly do.

With regards to the AirAsia/ Indonesia AirAsia divide, I must say that only Wikipedia has made this distinction so clearly. Indonesia AirAsia is 49% owned by AirAsia because of the investment laws in Indonesia that require Indonesian majority equity ownership. The Indonesian company that owns 51% of AirAsia is for all purposes a silent partner set up to comply with such laws. It is clear that while AirAsia and Indonesia AirAsia are different companies, they are operating as the same airline. In the article, all the planes of Indonesia AirAsia is included in the AirAsia "fleet". There is no separate website for Indonesia AirAsia - they all come under AirAsia.com. However, this distinction is unimportant for the purposes of including references to the report as the report refers to AirAsia.

Given that a neutral third party has voiced his opinion that my edits are correct, I propose to re-insert them. Jermzc (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of compensation on QZ8501

@SempreVolando:@Davey2010: Hi SempreVolando, as I mentioned on your talk page when I reverted to my edits, the articles I quoted criticised AirAsia, not AirAsia Indonesia, in the handling of compensations for QZ8501. Mr Tony Fernandes of AirAsia (not AirAsia Indonesia) was specifically mentioned in the articles in relation to the criticism. Please also see above for what is my impression of the AirAsia/AirAsia Indonesia distinction. If there are no objections, I propose to include my edits on this matter. Jermzc (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hub problems and disputes

@Drmies: I've quoted from Bloomberg and malaymailonline as my sources, which I regard to be reliable. Issues with Airasia at both the Kuala Lumpur and Kota Kinabalu have been widely reported as well. I also regard my summary as fair since I've included official statements from AirAsia. I propose to reinstate my edits? Jermzc (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't see any wide reporting on it--what I do see is that you copied content from the Malay Mail Online article into the Wikipedia article, and I do see that you seem awfully interested in presenting "controversy". Why would one issue over a hub be of encyclopedic value? Drmies (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: I can cite The Malaysian Insider, Malaysian Chronicle, The Star (Malaysia) and The Sun Daily (Malaysia) as well. The issue of its primary and secondary hubs are definitely of importance to the airline - it affects both safety and profitability - as stated by AirAsia officials in the Bloomberg and Malay Mail Online articles which I've cited. It will therefore be of relevance to readers as well.

It seems that my additions are only deemed controversial because they do not help to market the company like the rest of the article. But none of my citations are unreliable. This article should not only be about advertising how good the company is, like its efficiency and awards and how it is a "pioneer".

Again, I propose to reinstate my addition. Jermzc (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • User is blocked indefinitely for disrupting and socking. That doesn't mean the sources they were looking at are invalid, and I urge editors of good faith to look at them. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:AirAsia/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

what is the mission and vision statement of air asia?

Last edited at 18:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 06:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Criticism

Controversies[edit]

AirAsia maintains a no-refund policy on substantially all of its commercial routes. In 2014, the Company initiated a partial refund policy restricted to flights departing from South Korea after receiving hundreds of fare dispute claims that led the South Korean government to recommend a revision in its policy.[65] This revision does not apply to flights departing from elsewhere in the world, where the no-refund policy remains intact.

I dont think this is necessarily true anymore. I've just booked a flight with them and they have guidelines for refund compensation. Alexandre8 (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on AirAsia. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 05:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on AirAsia. 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) 16:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Largest Airbus narrowbody customer?

In the paragraphs below the fleet table, there are multiple statements claiming that AirAsia is the largest Airbus narrowbody customer. This fact is contradicted by the fleet table in the IndiGo article which itself has a link to another Wikipedia article confirming this stating that IndiGo is the largest Airbus customer. Considering all of this information, I think it can be safely assumed that AirAsia is no longer the largest Airbus operator. I would make the changes to the AirAsia article myself, but I am struggling with referencing this, and just wanted to post about it here so that my edit is not revoked when it is in fact valid.

122.106.88.56 (talk) 08:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The largest identified Airbus narrowbody (A318, A319, A319neo, A320, A320neo, A321, A321neo combined) customer as of 31 July 2017 per Airbus O&D data is AirAsia (578 orders), followed by GECAS (565) and Indigo (530). See here. Hope that helps. SempreVolando (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on AirAsia. 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) 16:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AirAsia. 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) 11:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Flight 8501

Article in UK newspaper re relative prominence of crash — see here--A bit iffy (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Tafeax, are you in any way connected to AirAsia? You must be, because otherwise how could you possibly think that the entry on that airline should have no mention of the most newsworthy event in its entire history? Wombatjpw (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I presume you mean the recent accident related to Indonesia AirAsia, if so then it is already mentioned in that article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, I think that there should be a mention about Flight 8501 somewhere in this article, because the flight was operated using just the "AirAsia" name. The Wikipedia is just about the only place where this flight is called "Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501". The article doesn't clearly describe the relationship between the parent company (AirAsia Berhad, this article) and its affiliates. I am not familiar with AirAsia, except for my work on the Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 article, but it appears to me that for passengers, the airline and (at least some, including Indonesia AirAsia) its affiliates are one airline. For example, there is no website for Indonesia AirAsia and their planes have "AirAsia" livery. Although AirAsia Berhad only owns 49% of Indonesia AirAsia, its CEO Tony Fernandes has been the center of media attention in the aftermath of QZ8501. So it seems to me that the distinction between AirAsia and Indonesia AirAsia is mainly on paper. As such, I think a short mention in this article is appropriate, clearly stating that the flight was operated by Indonesia AirAsia. AHeneen (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
It is mentioned in the see also section but perhaps the compromise is a mention under the Indonesia Air Asia section. MilborneOne (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think a deep knowledge of the subsidiary structure of an airline conglomerate should be required to find out fairly basic information. The Guardian, The Telegraph, BBC, NPR, Popular Mechanics, The Independent, The Smithsonian, CBS, NBC and Fox are among the sources referring to it as "Air Asia Flight 8501", not "Indonesian Air Asia Flight 8501". The aircraft in question was flying with "Air Asia" livery, and is naturally understood to be an "Air Asia" aircraft. I would, for example, not expect a wet leased aircraft that crashed to be listed under the company it was leased from, even if that is perhaps bureaucratically accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.97.2.35 (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://focusmalaysia.my/All/airasia-as-official-airline-partner-for-wesg. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. A-NEUN ⦾TALK⦾ 13:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The CIA-owned dummy airline?

In the vietnam war, AirAsia (along with Air america) was founded as by a dummy company owned by CIA to help the local troops over there. However, the article does not say that.

You are confusing this airline with Air Asia (Taiwan), a completely different entity, despite the similar names. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Flight Change due to reschedule of flight

Sir, I have a booking on 26th January from Bangalore to Kolkata flight no I5 1321 and PNR NO 08GP6X. Just now I received a call in my mobile no 9830013260 that it is rescheduled at 12.50pm. Please reschedule our flight on 26th at 17.20 for two tickets. Thanks 2409:4060:20A:709F:0:0:1E98:68AD (talk) 09:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Air Asia planes

What kind of planes? How many places? Where do they fly to Combodia? How many tines per day? 117.20.116.51 (talk) 12:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AirAsia/Archive_1&oldid=1146349012"