Wikipedia

Talk:EasyJet

Latest comment: 14 days ago by Thefullenchilada in topic Operating bases
Learn more about this page
Former good article nomineeEasyJet was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 9, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
March 15, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Criticism

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The Criticism section seems remarkably short, compared with say Ryanair. Might it be that someone has chosen to delete a bunch of criticisms? Ben Finn (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Or maybe no one ever wrote more than this, I don't remember there being any more in the criticism section. And maybe because there's a lot more to say about Ryanair ;) Slasher-fun (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Or maybe there isnt as much criticism or that its would not be notable --JetBlast (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Fleet figures

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please can people stop removing the Boeing 737-700 from the fleet table. Only remove this when they have been removed from the UK Aircraft Register. Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

'British' airline

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

In the first paragraph of the article is describes Easyjet as a British airline - yet each plane carries the European flag (not the union flag) and on the website Easyjet describe themselves as a 'European low-cost airline' [5]

Other than the parent company being registered on the London stock exchange, what are the main reason why we're calling the company british?

I'd like to change this paragraph to reflect the company’s own statements, anyone have an opinion? Richardeast (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

As you say, the company is listed on the London Stock Exchange,[1] has it's registered office in Luton,[2] holds only a United Kingdom Air Operator Certificate,[3] and operates only British-registered aircraft.[4]. Obviously for marketing purposes the company wants to portray itself as a 'pan-european' carrier, hence the statement on the website and the EU flag on aircraft, but it is a British company which is not registered in any other european country (with the exception of Easyjet Switzerland, a different airline). Why would we state it is anything other than a British airline? Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Dont think you should should change it - the main reason it is described as a British airline is because it is a British airline, it is normal to describe companies by nationality and as far as I am aware European is not a nationality. Nothing wrong with the airline using the term European low-cost airline but it is not a reason to describe the airline in the lead as European. The flag by the way belong to the European Union and is not acutally a "European flag" (not all of Europe is in the EU). It would be equally correct for Ryanair to use the same term but you would not call it other than an Irish airline in the lead. MilborneOne (talk) 12:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
On your logic, is 'british' even valid? There's plenty here in Wales who'd say britain's an island, not a nation. Sempre, I partially agree with you, though, when Easyjet themselves say "Despite our UK roots, over 60% of easyJet’s passengers now start their journey from outside the UK and easyJet is a truly pan-European airline" who are we to disagree? Richardeast (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
British is valid, nothing to do with islands or nations British is the correct Demonym for the United Kingdom. They are a British airline who operate in Europe so the marketing statements are correct, British Airways describe themselves as a Global airline so would you change them from British to "Global". If you want to change how companies and things are described then you really need to go to the Wikipedia:Village pump and make a global suggestion that the country of origin of most subjects in this encyclopedia should be ignored and replaced with marketing terms or such like, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Strategy compared to Southwest

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Southwest does serve complimentary snacks and offer transfers. Its a different model than easyjet's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.23.25 (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Renamed?

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

As someone renamed this paghe to easyJet? Why doesn't it have a capital at the beginning? Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 07:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

It has a template Template:lowercase title which makes the page display lower case initial letter at the top of the page, I understand the article itself (or any article) must start with a capital letter first so this is a fudge. MilborneOne (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Ah i see thanks --JetBlast (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

About 18 June 2013 Airbus "order"

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi,

I reverted recent additions (including mine) about what was incorrectly understood as an "order" of Airbus aircrafts by easyJet.

easyJet PR: "easyJet plc [...] announces that, subject to shareholder approval, it has entered into arrangements with Airbus S.A.S. ("Airbus") to acquire [...]"
Airbus PR: "Subject to shareholder approval, easyJet has identified a future need for 100 A320neo aircraft"

This "order" is not firm yet.

Slasher-fun (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply


  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ [3]
  4. ^ [4]
edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The blue link 'John Barton' , a founder of Easyjet leads to a disambiguation page that has a bunch of John Bartons that are no him. So maybe add him to the disambiguation page (with an article) or unlink his name. 71.139.166.154 (talk) 06:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Unlinked. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on EasyJet. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 01:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Move proposal

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Proposal to move at Talk:Easy Jet (horse) to Easy Jet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by In ictu oculi (talk • contribs) 12:23, 20 October 2015‎ (UTC)Reply

Yes, there is such a proposal that is being discussed at Talk:Easy Jet (horse). Persons interested in participating in that discussion should do so on that talk page, not here. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on EasyJet. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 21:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on EasyJet. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on EasyJet. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on EasyJet. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Just easyJet UK, or easyJet as a whole?

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

This article is pretty ambivalent about whether it relates to easyJet UK only, or to easyJet as a whole:

  • The hatnote says that the article is "about the British airline" and directs readers to the articles for easyJet Switzerland and easyJet Europe...
  • ...yet the vast majority of the text in the article is about the airline as a whole.
  • Editors seem to disagree as to whether or not fleet statistics should include aircraft owned and operated by the Swiss and Austrian affiliates.
  • Most first-time readers of this article will be unaware that it is technically three separate airlines. Most passengers don't even care!

I believe that the best solution is for this article to continue to cover easyJet as a whole. To clear up the ambiguity and stop edit wars over fleet numbers, we need to reword the hatnote, and make the fleet size in the infobox explicitly cover all three AOCs. For the fleet table in the body, I propose splitting it up with extra columns for each AOC.

Logically, we should also create a separate article for easyJet UK, mirroring those for CH and EU, though in practice I'm not sure how much useful information there would be to put in it, and maybe a simple redirect to this article would suffice.

Comments? Rosbif73 (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

No such thing as "the airline as a whole" they are all independent licensed airlines and companies, so this article should not really cover the Swiss and Austrian operations. I would leave this article as it always has to cover the easyjet airline company but something to condider would be an article on the parent company easyjet plc perhaps as the Easyjet group. So I would not support adding fleet numbers for other airlines in to this one. MilborneOne (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
I was thinking the same thing, so it would seem a good idea to split this article into Easyjet UK focusing on the UK based operations mainly operated by easyJet Airline Company Limited. And Easyjet Group focusing on Easyjet PLC the parent of Easyjet UK, Easyjet Europe and Easyjet Switzerland. In my eyes this raises two questions. 1) Do we add a master fleet list for all 3 airlines to Easyjey Group article? and 2) On airport articles do we put the airline as Easyjet Group? Mark999 (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Just some points I have never seen the term "easyjet UK" so I would avoid using it. Nothing wrong in the group article to mention how many aircraft it operates but shouldnt be seen as an excuse to shoe-horn in a full fleet list of the group airlines. No you cant put the airline as the group, the group is not an airline and each of the airlines is independent licensed and operated. MilborneOne (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
It is done that way with Norwegian Air Shuttle. Mark999 (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
No it isn't. YSSYguy (talk) 05:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
While it is technically correct that there is no such thing as "the airline as a whole", the average passenger sees a single "airline" with a single booking system and doesn't know or care about the technicalities of the multi-AOC arrangement. The same is almost certainly true of most people looking for information about easyJet on Wikipedia. IMO this "easyJet" article should remain and should continue to discuss the "airline as a whole", whilst explaining that it is in fact three airlines. By the same token, the vast majority of wikilinks in e.g. airport articles should continue to point here, especially as many flights that are operated by easyJet Airline Company Limited today will be operated by easyJet Europe tomorrow. However, information specific to the UK AOC should be moved to its own page. Personally, I'd favour a summary fleet table on this page collating the data from the three AOCs, but of course consistency with other multi-AOC "airlines" needs to be considered too.

EasyJet Europe

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello. As of 30th March 2019, EasyJet Europe are now operating flights under their own flight numbers and callsign. Shall we move the 17 European bases to only the EasyJet Europe Page and vice versa? As well as the routes operated by them on the respective airport pages like it's done with EasyJet Switzerland? --MKY661 (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Stylising/capitalisation of "easyJet"

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I understand Easyjet wants to stylise their name as "easyJet", however, in proper texts standard language rules apply. News sources for example will never use "easyJet" when they speak about Easyjet (example: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-16552904). I'd like to see standard language rules being applied to every Wikipedia page, and not a company having influence over it for the sake of their name branding. Regardless, if Wikipedia deems the stylised version to be acceptable, words at the start of a sentence will always have a capital. Sentences then start with "EasyJet" or "Easyjet", nothing else. Another example of not using the stylised name brand on Wikipedia is Reddit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reddit) 21:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that English language rules should apply (including capitalisation at the start of sentences) rather than Wikipedia being driven by branding. Dormskirk (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
The policy is set out in MOS:TRADEMARK. This specifies capitalisation in accordance with normal usage, with the use of the camelcase EasyJet being "a judgement call" depending on prevalance of usage in reliable sources. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Fleet, financials etc

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

My understanding of this article is that it is for EasyJet Group: certainly the financials are for the Group and, so the information is comparable with other airlines, so should the fleet details. Dormskirk (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Although EasyJet UK is a relative new formation perhaps it needs an article and this one as you say should discuss the whole group. MilborneOne (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Sounds a good way forward to me. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Easyjet UK isn't a new thing as Easyjet has always been based from the UK, it's not a new airline like Easyjet Europe, so technically this page has always been Easyjet UK. So if a new page was be made it should be made for the whole easyGroup itself, there is no Easyjet group it all comes under the easyGroup. Air7777 (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Nope you are wrong "EasyJet UK" was only awarded an AOC In July 2018 as part of the pre-brexit excercise. So it is legally a new airline like Easyjet Europe. To quote "On 5 July 2018 easyjet UK Limited took over those of the Group's flight operations which are based within the UK, easyjet plc and all it subsidaries form the easyjet group." So clearly there is an Easyjet Group as well. MilborneOne (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Please note that easyJet UK has been created for the new airline, will need to tweak this article to be more about the easyjet group. MilborneOne (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
I have re-inserted the group table. I suspect it is a bit out of date and may need updating for recent changes. Dormskirk (talk) 11:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

easyJet UK and easyJet plc

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Am I correct in saying easyJet UK is a subsidiary of easyJet plc. EasyJet UK has its own wikipedia page, and therefore the template is incorrect as it should be a company infobox, and not contain the ICAO and callsign. (Airline7375 (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC))Reply

That makes sense to me. Dormskirk (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
It should really have a company infobox rather than an airline one. MilborneOne (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Incident in March 2009

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The incident in March 2009 was just that. It was not an accident as defined by investigators and the heading should not suggest othewise. Dormskirk (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have tweaked it to make it less "tabloid" and made it clear that the aircraft had finished working for easyjet and was with a maintenance organisation for hand over to the leasing company. But I am still not convinced it needs to be here. MilborneOne (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Can we get a consensus to actually remove this entry as the aircraft had been withdrawn from service and was under test for the leasing company and new leasor, it is probably undue weight. MilborneOne (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. It should definitely be deleted. Dormskirk (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Adding special liveries in fleet section

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Hello all. I have recently made many easyJet liveries for a flight sim and as a result, have learnt a lot about the special liveries. I am thinking of adding information on these liveries to the article but since this is my first contribution I thought I would get the go-ahead first. Additionally, should I add all the special liveries, or only the ones registered in the UK airline as I understand there is some confusion over whether this article includes the whole group. Easyjet fan (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi : Please ensure you read our policies first and in particular WP:CITE and WP:RS. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
I am now making these changes but it may take several days; I will cite sources as I go along however bear in mind I may need to publish changes and come back later so please try to avoid changing too much in that section and let me know if I'm doing something wrong. Easyjet fan (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, but you cannot leave material unsourced for several days. You should add the citations as you go along and not "come back later". As previously requested, please read WP:CITE and WP:RS. Dormskirk (talk) 12:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
In any case, details of special liveries are not generally considered encyclopedic enough for inclusion in airline articles; see WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Would it be better to create a separate page for it? Easyjet fan (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 09:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The current logo displayed is incorrect - the actual logo is different to easyJet being typed out. Can't find an actual logo anywhere so could anybody help? PurpleEquinox (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Have changed it so feel free to object if I've missed something PurpleEquinox (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

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

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Question

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Didn't they have some Boeing 737-800s? 94.196.247.58 (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Fleet table with or without subsidiary fleet

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey, I started a discussion about this topic. To see more, please click here: Talk page WikiPate (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

EasyJet 6074

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This incident was a pretty significant one, involving a near-catastrophic electrical fault and near midair collision. But I was wondering if it warrants its own article or is this fine enough?

Thanks KrystalInfernus (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

While this was a "serious incident" that could indeed have been catastrophic, I don't believe this meets the significant coverage criterion of the general notability guideline. The current mentions in this article and in List of accidents and incidents involving the Airbus A320 family are sufficient. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Alright thank you for clarifying, have a nice day. KrystalInfernus (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Fleet Images

edit
Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Airbus A319 image needs to be updated to the new easyJet livery as it is about the current fleet, not past fleet and old liveries. A320-200 is missing from the fleet images. I got a message saying my photos were of poor quality, then add new ones and in better quality not remove one and the other is outdated wearing an old livery. Aviation404 (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fleet images

edit
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Airbus A319 image needs to be update to the new unicorn Jet livery as it is about the current fleet, not past fleet and old liveries. A320-200 is missing from the fleet images. I got a message saying my photos were of poor quality, then repaint ones and in better quality not remove one and the other is outdated wearing an old livery. 2A02:C7C:E281:B800:D93:A8E6:3360:D37B (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Operating bases

edit
Latest comment: 14 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Someone has recently added Southampton International Airport, yet Southampton Airport isn't an EasyJet base. Thefullenchilada (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:EasyJet&oldid=1257154688"