Talk:Alaska Airlines

Alaska Destination Tables

These need to be split into three sections because of Alaska mainline Alaska horizon and Alaska SkyWest. Lucthedog2 (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Alaska Airlines

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

This article relies excessively on references to primary sources and have several uncited statements. Real4jyy (talk) 02:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Honolulu as an Alaska hub

I have a question about including Honolulu as a hub here on the Alaska Airlines page and on the Honolulu airport page. Yes, the Alaska Air Group has acquired Hawaiian Airlines and they are planning to merge all or at least most of its operations. But the two are (and are planned to remain) separate brands.

First, if you look at the Lufthansa page, the infobox lists Frankfurt and Munich as hubs. A footnote notes that, while the airline officially counts Berlin, Düsseldorf, Vienna, and Zurich among its hubs as well, they are not listed there because they are the hubs of its subsidiaries (Eurowings, Austrian, Swiss) and not of Lufthansa proper. In other words, they may be wholly owned subsidiaries but they are separate brands.

Second, on the Daniel K. Inouye International Airport page, listing both Hawaiian Airlines and Alaska Airlines in the infobox under "Hub for" seems redundant. It is a hub for Hawaiian. Please share your thoughts. Thanks. Precision123 (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Can someone provide a reliable source saying that Honolulu is a hub for Alaska Airlines? RickyCourtney (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It's all the focus on short-shelf-life content and editing activity which caused this article to become unstable and subsequently delisted as a GA. You're all over the revision history as a primary culprit. Why don't you explain why you believe it's appropriate to keep pushing the article in this direction? I scanned a bunch of Talking Totem issues, but feel it's a waste of my time to upload the images to Commons if they're not going to be used appropriately. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 15:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @RadioKaos, who are you referring to and can you describe what you mean? Thanks. --Precision123 (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Controversies section

First off I think it is ridiculous that controversies sections are a discouraged section type. How can you have a balanced view of a topic or subject if you don't learn about controversies? Also the source is reliable because I pulled it directly from the website of the law firm that sued Alaskan Airlines, and there is plenty of documentation on their website and in their files to prove it if you actually clicked the link. If you want to remove it simply because it is a controversy section, then you are undermining the purpose of wikipedia, which is to provide a balanced view of topics and inform the reader with many diverse perspectives from all around the world. Mccoyjacob22565 (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Mccoyjacob22565: Please read the previous consensus on the use of "Controversy" and "Criticism" sections that was linked in the Treehouse post. Simply put, having a separate section invites undue weight and the inclusion of minor issues that may bloat an article. You should not accuse other editors of maliciousness for simply following previous consensus. In this case, the website of a law firm involved in litigation against Alaska Airlines is not a reliable, unbiased source; it should have not been used in the first place. A secondary source with editorial standards, such as a reputable media outlet, would be preferred and such information can instead be weaved into existing sections so that readers don't have to jump back and forth to stay within chronological order. What was controversial in 1990 is not exactly relevant to 2025, and vice-versa. SounderBruce 23:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I understand the consensus around standalone “Controversy” or “Criticism” sections and the concern about undue weight or disruption of chronological flow. That said, I do think it’s important not to overcorrect by removing or burying material that is both well-documented and relevant, especially if it helps readers understand real-world impacts or public reception.

The material I added wasn’t intended to sensationalize or give undue focus to a minor issue — it concerns an ongoing lawsuit with substantial claims and coverage. While the original source was the plaintiff law firm’s website, the firm itself filed the suit and provided primary documentation. That kind of source has value, particularly when cross-referenced with other reporting or court filings. Still, I’m open to replacing it with a secondary source from a news outlet if one is available.

Rather than a standalone controversy section, maybe we could collaboratively incorporate the information into the appropriate part of the article — for instance, under a “Legal Issues” or “Recent Developments” subsection — while keeping it neutral and properly attributed.

I’m not accusing anyone of bad faith, and I appreciate your work here. Let’s find a way to balance the need for neutrality with the responsibility to include significant, sourced information — even if it reflects poorly on the subject. That’s part of presenting a full and fair encyclopedia entry.

2600:4040:7EFF:4100:2530:BBF6:2F29:BD9A (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)