User talk:Neo16287

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

JBLU flight times

Thanks for your comment on the JetBlue talk page about bad flight times -- Now that we have a cite one way hope that person will stop. BTW: how is it working at JetBlue? —Cliffb 03:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compliment regarding User:Golich17

I would like to express my thanks for your kind compliment. I definately enjoy aviation and I believe taking useful information from "Today in the Sky" and integrating it into the article makes great pages on Wikipedia as all information is reliable and relevant.--Golich17 00:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accpeted

thanks for making a apology.User talk:Yousaf465

ATC Remarks on Today in the Sky

Neo, I'm not honestly sure what the runway incursion rate/ATC error rate per flight (or other valid comparison measure) is for Canada vs the US. What I do know is right now the FAA isn't oriented to serve their airline and private aircraft operator customers well since they're not really set up to think of them as customers.

It makes a whole lot of sense from my perspective that a non-profit corporation that collects user fees and is regulated by the FAA is a balance of being customer focused, while still being regulated on a safety front. Additionally, by not having the FAA regulate itself there is the addition of positive pressure to ensure that safety is followed. What would've happened if over the last ten years the FAA audited the private ATC operator's controller duty logs and noticed that in Lexington there was only one controller on when two were called for. The FAA would have brought this up so it could be corrected, but if it continued for any length of time there would have been a public fine, and pressure from customers (airlines) to fix it. Would this have averted the Comair flight 5191 disaster? I'm tangentially connected to that disaster, as a fellow alumni from my small high school was aboard that flight.

I'm not sure how to effect this change, but honestly I think the pilots union, airlines trade group, perhaps the controllers union, and other safety advocates need to push the case for change and an increase in safety and operational efficiency. (e.g. What if as people asked a flight could keep its takeoff slot after returning to the gate in bad weather, the airlines have asked for that, but the FAA hasn't delivered. I can't really see a safety impact so the FAA as regulator shouldn't really balk that much.)

I know I've dropped a pretty big analysis on your talk page, but I hope you're interested in it. Drop me a message, or I'll also be watching this page. Thanks... —Cliffb 05:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I like chatting about this subject.. But what really amazes me is that there seems to be a significant deficit when it comes to electronic data interchange. Why aren't airplanes and ATC communicating with data messages for the routine transmissions? I kinda remember that during some parts of the ATC process the planes ordering are being handled with cardboard slats. Also thinking about the runway incursion problems, I'm kinda surprised that there isn't more data interchanging in this area. It seems to me that we're using ATC controllers as computers, when really we should be using computers monitored by ATC controllers. A computer could fairly easily see that "there is already a plane that has a 'slot' on this runway for the next minute, no more clearances allowed, instead of placing this on people. Technologically a whole lot of things could be safely done to improve safety while reducing stress. But I don't think the FAA really has the ability to implement these. —Cliffb 05:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protecting a page

Hi Neo16287- I was wondering how we go about getting a page semi-protected (or even permanently protected) like the JetBlue page once was. The Carl Sandburg High School page keeps getting vandalized and I want it to stop. Any help would be great! Sox 23 02:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help! Sox 23 03:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cayman Air Question

Hey Neo16287- the only facts I know about Cayman's pullout of BOS is from this airliners.net forum. I also looked on Cayman Air's website and noticed they did not have BOS or FLL as part of their schedule: Cayman Air schedule. In fact, their only US destinations are: New York, Chicago, Tampa, Orlando, Houston, and Miami. The airliners.net forum I told you about says that possibly the introduction of New York (JFK) service is replacing the BOS service. That would be my guess (and the MIA service is replacing FLL service). Other than that, I know nothing else as there hasn't been a press release (as far as I know). Hope this helps...Sox 23 17:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Sox 23 20:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New England

In response to your comments about New England: Thank you Neo. You are very wise! Indeed if New York was part and parcel of New England I would have had to adjust the population and area as well. That would involve too much calculation. So lets leave it out then. I would urge you though to consider the historical context and think if there are any good reasons why New York should be left out of this exclusive club. The line seems rather arbitrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtkrug (talk • contribs)

Hello Neo. I am still unclear about your comments: You wrote: "New England was colonized by the Dutch, and was referred to as New Amsterdam. Not the Brits, and thus not New England. Now that I have set that straight for you..." If New England was colonized by the Dutch, why is it called England at all? It is not straight to me at all. And regarding Wiki's no personal attacks policy, "do us all a favor and sign your posts" may not be too far off the mark either. Regards, Mtkrug 20:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)mtkrug[reply]

Images

Hey, no worries! You might like to look at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria - I haven't investigated, but you might have an argument under a "fair-use" claim. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 21:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Air Lines

Yes, I am an employee of Delta. I am also a graduate of Embry-Riddle University. Aviation is my interest so I often edit related articles. Maranomerau 20:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Airport

I have twice revised the article to note, factually, that the airport is located on the border between East Boston and Winthrop and you have twice revised the article to say the airport is only in East Boston. This is hardly the most important fact about the airport, but if you are going to state the location of the place, you need to state the actual location. The northern third or so of the airport lies within Winthrop and Massport is a significant taxpayer in the Town of WInthrop as a result. This land area is not contiguous with the rest of Winthrop, but it lies within the Town's corporate boundary.

I am not the lurker who has accused you of vandalism below, but it is rather irksome that my addition of factual information that you otherwise find relevant (i.e., to the extent of your making the point that the airport lies in East Boston), you "revise" as "irrelevant" and then do not bother to fact check. Thanks Mileage 04:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Report of vandalism

Thanks for reporting the vandalism to the Jet Blue page. To be sure that a vandal is called to the immediate attention to administrators who are online, consider making your report to the administrator's notice board for vandalism. The page has instructions on how and when to report, as well as guidance for non-admins on warning vandals. Thanks. — ERcheck (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you're what's wrong with wikipedia!

STOP REPORTING "VANDALISM" WHEN THERE ISN'T ANY.

Specifically referring to your false accusation of vandalism on the Logan Int'l Airport page when the edit you undid was quite accurate.

Stop ruining wikipedia! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.33.49.251 (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Look closer to see that the edit you undid was accurate... and thus that you were WRONG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.49.251 (talk • contribs)

Once again, look closer to see that the edit you did was not "a space" but rather the addition of a missing closed braket. I cannot refix the edit because a lurker like yourself will simply undo it again. And as for your threats to report me, I'd be more than happy to report you for false claims of vandalism, which is far worse than your broad, immature definition of harassment in terms of its impact on the Wikipedia project.

Our friend anon 71.235.81.32

Give up hope.--Loodog 13:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is and isn't vandalism

The consensus on WP:AIV so far is that the recent edits by 67.183.153.10 aren't vandalism (though there may be other issues, like a conflict of interest, that need to be addressed). Please read WP:VAND to see what we do consider vandalism. Accusing someone of vandalising when they're not can often by counter-productive.--Chaser - T 05:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. However the wording of said edits were nearly identical to the vandalism of another user and his sockpuppet last week. The edits made by the IP were the same, and thus, after dealing with that vandal before, it looked as if he was back on an anon IP.Neo16287 05:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Logan Airport

It is difficult to be a productive member of the Wikipedia community when forced to deal with someone like you who removes my simple edit (saying that Logan Airport is partly in East Boston and partly in Winthrop) by first claiming it is "not notable," then removes it a second time by stating "Winthrop is across the water from the airport," as if it's not possible for a town to have non-contiguous pieces, and then thirdly who demands evidence on my talk page that Massport in fact actually pays property taxes to the Town of Winthrop.

It is obviously impossible to deal with a constantly evolving standard for what a single editor deems acceptable in an article he or she is so zealously guarding as you are here.

Meanwhile, the only evidence you cite yourself is your own authority, artlessly disguised as "Every Massport official I know has told me the airport is in East Boston only," as if this assertion is empirically superior to my assertion (which I will now endeavor to support so long as you do the same)

For evidence that Massport is a big contributor to Winthrop's budget, see http://www.massport.com/1999annual/notes_financial.html.

For evidence that Logan's northern chunk is in Winthrop, please consult any map of Massachusetts that shows municipal boundaries. I can't find one online, so I may photograph pages from various road atlases or from the Encyclopedia of Massachusetts History instead.

Remember that the boundaries between municipalities in the Commonwealth include coastal waterways and that the boundary between Winthrop and East Boston was settled well before Logan was created from landfill in the 1940's. The landfill extended well across the Winthrop municipal boundary and consequently a big chunk of the airport is in Winthrop.

I am astounded that such a minor thing could be remotely controversial.

Mileage

Thank you for listening to me and helping me better understand how Wikipedia works. I apologize if my posting above seems like a personal attack - that wasn't my intent but I can easily imagine why you read it that way. On the other hand, on my Talk page you claim you "only asked for a link." From where I sit, that's a little bit of an exaggeration.

You've asked me not to post on your talk page, but i don't know of any other way to communicate with you, so I am doing so regardless.

If I can make a suggestion - and please feel free to tell me I'm crazy - it would be for you to consider more detail in the edit summary the second time you revert an edit. If you had asked for a citation, I might have provided it immediately. Understand that your involvement with and sophistication using Wikipedia far surpasses mine and probably that of most of the folks whose edits you revert.

The guideline is to stop short of three reverts, and it's a good guideline. I think the reason it exists is that if you get to the point where you have to correct someone three times then you have an obligation to use the instance as a teaching opportunity (i.e., some newbie is making a basic mistake) or else you should pause and reflect about whether or not you are making the right editing choice.

I found it useful to re-read the reverting guidelines at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Reverting

Mileage 02:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public Charters

Public charters flight can be sold directly through an airlines' website, and are sold through an airlines website. The difference is that the money for the flight is held an escrow through a third party until the flight takes off, even though you book it through that website. SATA is not a scheduled airline. They do not have U.S. DOT permission to operate scheduled flights to the U.S. Their operating certificate is exclusively for charter flights, and that is what all their flights are. Same with Finnair's 757 flights. You cannot redeem miles or earn miles on Finnair's Boston flights because they are public, scheduled charters. The following is a link to SATA's public charter agreement:

http://www.abreu-tours.com/static_us/sata.pdf

Everybody who flies SATA's flights from Boston have to agree to these terms. Scheduled charter was not the best term. They are public charters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.249.200 (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miles & More

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Miles & More, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Page Tables

Hey Neo-

I just copied and pasted the fleet tables from the airline pages (i.e. the JetBlue Airways Fleet table) and changed/added spaces for my information. Feel free to copy the table from my page and add your own information if you want. If you have any questions just ask - Sox 23 22:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome

Neo - anytime. —Cliffb (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE READ!

Hi Neo16287

You may remember me from the Washington Dulles to Dubai edit conflict. I was wondering if you would like to be my friend here on Wikipedia. I already have one friend, and I hope you will be my second, because we have the same interests.

If you can, please reply on my talk page!

Thanks

Sha721 (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put you under my friends page!

Sha721 (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JetBlue

Hi, Neo. If feel that the occurrence does warrant mention. I've created separate section called "Ocurrences". If you feel a different extsing section would be more appropriate, please feel free to move. I don't think that sort of happening should go un-noted. Thanks. --Nricardo (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DL Focus Cities Issue

Hey Neo! I was just wondering are LGA, BOS, LAX, and MCO still Delta Focus Cities. The merger website clearly lists them as focus cities. The anon user who keeps removing them from the infobox and they say that the merger cites is out of date. But at the bottom of the page there a note says that the destinations data are from January 2008 - December 2008. I just want to clear this up. Thanks! 74.183.173.237 (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree with you. LGA has to be a focus city since it has its own terminal at LGA. Now, the focus cities has been removed from the infobox. Mostly Delta occupies most of the terminals at BOS, LAX, and LGA but i dont know about MCO. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Thank you. That makes more sense. That was purely to post a comment but I have switched to the talk page as you have asked. I want to do this right and fairly. I don't want to cause trouble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.36.127 (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Airlines at BOS

Hey Neo, I referenced the article that discusses Alaska Airline's move to Terminal A at Boston. Its due to commence on July 27th. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks much, David

Hey David, I just found the press release. Apologies! Neo16287 (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it happens. Mnsourcer (talk)

An exciting opportunity to get involved!

As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 03:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JetBlue Airways and the JFK Airport hub

Hi,

I have started a discussion at both Talk:JetBlue_Airways#JetBlue_Airways_and_the_JFK_Airport_hub and in the WP:Airlines talk section in regards to the listing of hubs/focus cities for JetBlue Airways. I know your folks decided on a consensus 1 year ago, but consensus can change if people in the discussion has a strong argument.

Cheers. --Sb617 (talk · contribs) 10:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Global Entry Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Global Entry Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hugahoody (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Global Entry Logo.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Global Entry Logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 19:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]