Talk:Hawaiian Airlines

0 views


Edit suggestion.

[edit]

Change Hawaiian's AOC to Alaska's, its fully being merged into Alaska's operations Johnmusliner (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already done See the last paragraph under Hawaiian Airlines § Acquisition by Alaska Air Group (2023–2024). Peaceray (talk) 03:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 2025

[edit]

@AVA Navigate on 8 December added (4) additional Boeing 787 aircraft orders under the fleet section of the Hawaiian Airlines page. For context there is already a note beside the 787s that clearly states "All to be transferred to Alaska Airlines by spring 2026.", this was the stable version of the page prior to AVA Navigate's unnecessary edit. It is very clear from the note provided and the recent changes within Hawaiian Airlines and Alaska Airlines that the 4 787s are not additional aircraft orders. They are already part of Hawaiian and Alaska's combined fleet as they both operate under a single operating certificate and are one combined airline. The only thing that is changing here is that the 4 aircraft will be repainted into Alaska's new international livery. I can't make this any more transparent than it already is. AVA Navigate has changed the article in its stable form twice more on 13 and 14 December. I changed his first edit on 8 December and his second edit on 13 December as it is clear that the 4 787s are not additional orders as I have previously mentioned. I then log into my Wikipedia account today to see a message from @RickyCourtney informing me that he considers me to be involved in an edit war and threatening me with being blocked from editing. I am baffled by this as all along I have been changing the article back to its stable version prior to the incorrect edit by AVA Navigate. It's ironic though and contradictory how RickyCourtney can accuse me of being engaged in an edit war when he reverts an edit on the Hawaiian Airlines page by user Johnmusliner. It's not one rule for one user and a different rule for another user. If RickyCourtney can revert an edit to bring the article back to a stable version, I can too. Also RickyCourtney, have you threatened AVA Navigate with being blocked from editing too or was it just me? Seems to me like you found the perfect excuse and opportunity to accuse me of an edit war due to our previous interactions and disagreement on this very article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frequentflyer93 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I expected my concerns and reasonings in your user talk page under title 'Hawaiian Airlines' on why I did what I did. You can go from there, but I will no longer taking action on this matter, have a good day. AVA Navigate (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

@Frequentflyer93 per WP:BRD you should be discussing contested changes instead of edit warring.

Infoboxes are for the current status of the airline, with some basic history. That parameter is not meant to give the potted history of the airline, it’s meant to give you the date when the airline named “Hawaiian Airlines” started operation. The fact it has been taken over is a matter for the history section, or more likely its own sub-section in the article. Danners430 tweaks made 18:54, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add - the template documentation is also clear that it’s a date… not a list of dates. It’s simply not designed for the use you’re trying to squeeze in. Danners430 tweaks made 18:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet list

[edit]

Bringing this here to avoid perpetuating further edit warring, and courtesy pinging @Frequentflyer93, as previous discussions got nowhere and were lost in the weeds.

The fleet table in the article is mostly sourced to Hawaiian’s own fleet page, which is ideal as it explicitly verifies all the figures in the table. However, the B787-9 has a mishmash of sources, none of which explicitly verify that Hawaiian have 2 aircraft in their fleet - instead multiple sources (some potentially unreliable) are being combined to come to the conclusion that 2 are in the fleet. This to me is not only concerning due to the questionable reliability of the sources (as discussed at RSN, FR24 actively ask for user submissions of aircraft data, which puts its status with regards to WP:UGC in question), but combining sources to come to a conclusion not explicitly stated in sources is what WP:SYNTH is about.

Do we have reliable sources which explicitly verify the figures in the table that can be used? Danners430 tweaks made 08:57, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be real, you're bringing it here because you know you haven't a leg to stand on. If you had reverted my reliably sourced edits you would be in breach of the 3RR and actively engaged in an edit war. Our previous discussion "got nowhere" to you because it didn't end with you having the final say. To me, the discussion got everywhere. The fleet table that uses Hawaiian's own fleet page as a source is far from ideal as it's not an independent source. The reason the 787-9s doesn't presently have one specific reliable source is due to the fact that they are actively leaving Hawaiian's fleet and are joining Alaska's. If there are no fully reliable sources available at the moment, editors have to make use of whatever sources are readily available at the time of editing a page. Wikipedia does not have a policy that states multiple reliable sources cannot be combined to verify data. If the sources are independent and relibale that's all that matters. In this scenario the FR24 aircraft data pages confirm that the two 787-9 aircraft, N780HA and N781HA, are now operated by Alaska. That information is good enough as it confirms the data and meets the criteria for independent sourcing. At RSN other editors told you that FR24 uses ADS-B which confirms the operator of each aircraft in the form of ICAO codes and call signs. This data can then be added to the individual aircraft pages and does not put its status in relation to UGC into question which you are claiming it does. If sources are combined the reader of a page doesn't think about the fact that they had to open two or more sources, they just subconsciously do it (if they do at all). Therefore, why should it matter how many sources are provided? Bit of a trivial arguement and a total waste of time to prove a point in my opinion. In direct response to your last question - no, we don't have further "reliable sources" that explicitly verify the figures in the table because if we had I would have used them in the first instance. This is what I've already told you so why are you asking the question again? Also, the sources I provided are sufficient for now. The 787s are actively being phased out of Hawaiian's fleet so it will take a period of time before websites are updated with the new fleet information. As we wait the table is acceptable in its current form but if you are that concerned about it, I would suggest that you do some Googling yourself to find better sources. It won't be long before you realise that the sources I provided are the only reliable ones available at present. Frequentflyer93 (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I'm not going to read that WP:WALLOFTEXT. But what I have gleaned from skimming through your comment is that we're using unreliable sources because no better sources are available - well then it's very simple… if no reliable sources are available to verify content, then the content is not verifiable and has no place on Wikipedia. It's that simple. Am I correct in my reading of your comment? Danners430 tweaks made 16:28, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Incorrect. The discussion at RSN which you initiated relates to using FR24 to verify aircraft liveries. That discussion is not applicable to my edits as I used FR24 to verify the operator of an aircraft. FR24 is reliable for that reason up until the point when it has been deemed unreliable following a separate discussion at RSN. Have I simplified my response enough for you to digest this time or is it still too much of a wall for you? Frequentflyer93 (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Please, stop being pointy and sarcastic. I can't be bothered making more reports. You're actually incorrect I'm afraid - it's up to the person wishing to use a source to prove its reliability, not the other way round. However that's not really here nor there, we can wait until that discussion finished if you so desperately desire, but so far the discussion is leaning towards it being unreliable for those specific things. But we'll wait until a consensus is reached if you're so desperate. However, it still leaves us with WP:SYNTH - as I said right at the beginning, there is no source which explicitly says "Hawaiian flies X number of plane Y" - instead we have one from some time ago which says that, and two others which show that two specific aircraft are flying for Alaska. As I said above, combining sources like that to come to a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source is SYNTH, per the wording of that policy. Additionally, where are there sources which state those two aircraft previously flew with Hawaiian? Basically the sourcing is a mess. Wikipedia isn't a news outlet, we don't have to present the most breaking news - we're an encyclopaedia, based off reliable sources per our sources policy. And right now we simply, as you yourself have said, do not have a reliable source which explicitly gives the exact number of aircraft flying for Hawaiian. Danners430 tweaks made 17:37, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] The moral of this ridiculous story is this - my edits and sources stay exactly where I put them, end of. Claiming that the outcome of the discussion at RSN relating to aircraft liveries is somehow going to impact my edits is false. This is at least my third or fourth time breaking it down for you now but here it is again very simply - the discussion at RSN relates to using FR24 to verify aircraft liveries. It's completely off topic in relation to my edits and is non applicable. I used FR24 to verify the operator of an aircraft and you've also been briefed on how ADS-B collects this data. Like it or lump it. My responses to you terminates here because each and every interaction with you from day dot is draining the life and soul out of me. Goodbye Danners430. Frequentflyer93 (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] I’m sorry but that’s not how content disputes work. This is a collaborative project, so you cannot dictate my edits and sources stay exactly where I put them, end of. You are welcome to disengage at any time, that is absolutely your right, however I am not disengaging and will continue working to ensure that the sourcing of this article and others is per Wikipedia policy. You are not required to participate, and I’m not going to force you. But I’m not closing this discussion as this is not a one-to-one conversation, it’s a discussion open to all editors. As of right now, from my perspective, the fleet table is in breach of WP:SYNTH. Danners430 tweaks made 17:55, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] How in God's name can there be a content dispute when you won't even read my replies and claim WP:WALLOFTEXT. The math ain't mathing Danners. Frequentflyer93 (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Like I've told you, goodbye. Start respecting my wishes. Frequentflyer93 (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] This is an open talk page, not your own. I’m happy to stay off your talk page except for required notices if you so desire, but this discussion is staying open. Danners430 tweaks made 18:00, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Again, goodbye. Frequentflyer93 (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is sourced from Wikipedia. Content is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.