Talk:WestJet/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about WestJet. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

I have just removed the strange copyright notice about the image. This information belongs on the image page, not in the main article. And, in fact, it is on the image page. I see no reason why this information should have it's own section in the main article. -- Fudoreaper 21:34:10, 2005-08-04 (UTC)

I notice that the history mentions that service to Fort McMurray, Comox, Sault Ste. Marie, Thompson and Brandon was dropped. While this may be true, the service to Fort McMurray and Comox has been reinstated quite some time ago. (I am unsure of the status of the other aformentioned destinations). I know that Fort McMurray and Comox is listed in the current link for Destinations, but perhaps this should be changed in the History section as well? Any thoughts on this? SJM 15 January 2007

New Orleans was dropped 15:52, 21 June 2011 (MST) modified destinations amount. — Preceding comment added by IndigouFox (talk • contribs)

I have to question the motivations behind someone without prior contributions to this article posting a lengthy section on judgments against WestJet's baggage policies. But, there it is.
I'd like to go over the format in the interests of keeping clutter to a minimum. I'm also unsure as to whether or not this warrants its own section - so far as I can tell, there were not huge damages incurred nor is this a huge legal case (on par with the Air Canada espionage).
I think we could delete some of the specific instances, but keep the references. Thoughts? CFV2 (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Found references to the Haiti charter, here;
http://westjet2.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=409
And that seasonal service to Holguin is operated as a charter for WestJet Vacations, here;
http://westjet2.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=391
Should these be added to refs?CFV2 (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The Cuba flights used to be charter until WestJet received designation to fly scheduled flights there this spring. That's why I thought there were no more charters, but if you want to include the Haiti one, go for it. Thankyoubaby (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are the sources:

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/press/canada-announces-more-air-travel-options-in-the-caribbean,1153843.html

http://westjet2.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=432

Well, I had figured that they do offer charter services, as there's usually a field in their quarterly reports outlining "charter (and other) revenue."

Just as an anecdote -- I do recall seeing a flight (9500) on FlightAware, operating something from Toronto to Gander just a few days ago (July 2). I also have heard stuff from friends working there about charters for firefighters during the summer in addition to the charter relief flights to Louisiana and Haiti.

When I wrote that - and I used the Air Canada article for a basis - I thought it was a safe bet to say that WestJet does offer charter services, even if they seem largely on a one-off or ad-hoc basis. Sorry for not giving verifiable refs. :( CFV2 (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Doing some pretty major revisions to the article; adding some meat here and there, fixing some of the old refs, adding news refs, re-writing the introduction and so on. It's a work in progress, so please add suggestions -- I'm also trying to maintain the article's neutral POV, which is difficult as many of the verifiable sources I can find are coming directly from WestJet.
Thankyoubaby, maybe you could help me out with that, by finding some other sources?
I'm also trying to reorganize the History section -- and thinking it could use a major haircut. It's largely a catalogue of new destination announcements over the years -- and that's becoming cumbersome and cluttered now that there's almost seventy of them. We have the WestJet Destinations article to explicitly list them all, anyway.
So I'm thinking of pruning them down, after the year 2000 or so - replacing a listing of new destinations with phrases like, "in 2002, WestJet added XX new Canadian destinations" and, "the airline added a further XX destinations in Mexico and the Caribbean in 2009." We can keep the individual refs so it's verifiable.
Any ideas? CFV2 (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good on both accounts. I'll look for some third party sources when I have time. :) Thankyoubaby (talk) 05:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Should we mention WestJet's new reservation system? I've seen a number of articles in the papers and industry publications referencing the company changing its reservation system sometime late last year, and challenges incurred from a customer-service standpoint.
We don't have anything about it, on here - is it notable, or not? It was (apparently) a major event for the company, and is going to facilitate WestJet interlining with other carriers according to their higher-ups.... so I would suggest it is notable, on both counts.CFV2 (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are we adding turbulence incidents involving minor injury to the "accidents" part of the article? Other airlines don't have these recorded, on theirs. (Read: Air Canada) Doesn't seem notable enough to warrant inclusion - especially since the source quoted is an industry magazine. Thoughts? CFV2 (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Its a copyright violation too, since they're just copied and pasted. Thankyoubaby (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If it's in violation of copyright, it probably should be canned. I didn't notice that.

I'm of the opinion that if it doesn't make a mainstream news outlet - like a newspaper or TV network - it probably doesn't warrant inclusion in the article. That, and it makes further verification and referencing pretty easy. CFV2 (talk) 04:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, they can be taken out. Thankyoubaby (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The first part of this article is lacking. It needs some meat... this might be a good place to start; http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/WestJet-Airlines-Ltd-Company-History.html Any thoughts? CFV2 (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

We should probably talk about the airline's temporary shutdown in 1996 while it got its TC records in order, too. It was a major event for the airline. CFV2 (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Uhh WestJet isn't a Low Cost carrier. Their prices are consistently on par with Air Canada, and way more services are included than would be under a typical Low Cost model. Try pricing a flight online yourself - often they're identical to the cent. Onecouch (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • WestJet does follow most of the "business plan" points listed in the low-cost carrier article; on top of that, they refer to themselves explicitly as a "low-cost carrier" in their financial releases, which is the reference given in the article. I think the consensus is that it's a legitimate source to cite - it certainly cuts down on the arguments.  :)

As for fares being "on par;" compare any route which is served only by Air Canada, and not WestJet. WestJet has driven fares down in at least some markets since their introduction; so I would wager that Air Canada has marked down their fares to WestJet's level, to stay competitive. However, AC is without the low-cost structure to sustain that. The results for them are obvious; http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/air-canada-looks-to-ottawa-for-emergency-financing/article1183292/

CFV2 (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, maybe it's time to get started on revising this article and cleaning up a lot of the clutter it's accumulated over the years.
My main beef is with the history section, as it's been added to and added to by multiple users but doesn't seem to have a real 'flow,' and readability isn't especially easy. I'm not proposing wholesale deletions of points, merely some organization and re-writing to move away from the current jumble. Compare to the 'History' section in the Southwest Airlines article; that's the direction I'd like to go.
I can start with the header paragraphs and introduction, unless there are major objections. I would like to keep much of the information but add important pieces - again, using the WN article as a guide. I will not delete anything, but may move sentences out of the introduction to more appropriate sections of the article if they seem out of place.
Thankyoubaby... you're the only other guy who seems to be participating in the Talk... you have any objections or preference for what sections we tackle? Any ones you want to take on? I'll give ya first dibs :) CFV2 (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll just add as you go along. Thankyoubaby (talk) 06:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Was looking for independent verification on WestJet's IPO... CBC's news page seems to have been updated about a year after the IPO (it's listed in November of 2000, but the article URL states that it was originally written in July of 1999) - but, I used for reference their stated volume of 1.5M shares @ $10 a share; WestJet doesn't name a volume but pegs the price at $2.96 per share, "adjusted for splitting." I decided to go with the CBC figures, but with WestJet's stated date of July 1999. It seemed the best compromise without risking the "polished" figure that WestJet's Investor FAQ seems to list. Comments? CFV2 (talk) 07:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting with cleaning up the refs. They're a mess. CFV2 (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Refs are done. They should all be formatted neatly, now. CFV2 (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you think we should add a 'Top 5 Airports' chart like Southwest's Top 10 Airports? Thankyoubaby (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

In terms of daily departures, you mean? I think the 'focus cities' list in the infobox would serve the same purpose.... the list of WestJet's top five cities for departures\day and the focus cities list would be pretty close. Right?

I was looking for the number of departures\day WestJet does systemwide, but can't find that info anywhere. Or at least, nowhere I've been looking. The figure needs to be verifiable... any source you can think of that would list that info? CFV2 (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You can use the link 'Check Schedules' on WestJet's site and count up the number of nonstop daily departures. It differs for some cities between the Winter and Summer schedules though. Admittedly, it doesn't change the order of the focus cities, but it does inform the reader of say, the difference in capacity at YYC vs YWG. Thankyoubaby (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It's too bad that figure isn't readily verifiable... as much as methodology could be cited, it might not pass the smell test - especially as the figures would change from season to season. I'd prefer a quarterly report or corporate profile, somewhere.... but of course, it's never that easy.

When the last few refs are cleaned up - maybe after tonight - I'm going to start organizing the 'history' sections and dividing things up into order. Like, putting the years from '96-99 (around when WestJet went public) into an "early history" section, then about expansion, and so on - putting the legal action with Air Canada in the chronological order, too. Hopefully it'll make more sense of the current jumble.

Any ideas? CFV2 (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Could use some more initial history. I'll have to read Flight Path and see if there's more info about the company's initial foundation that would be helpful. At least we can cite books... ;) CFV2 (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a math error on the number of -700s. My count puts it at 56, not 57. I also added the new -800 delivered a week or so ago.
Checking Boeing's website of orders and deliveries, it looks like WestJet has 24 orders to be filled, not 44 as indicated in the infobox. Anyone else see that? Should this be changed? CFV2 (talk) 10:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

In their most recent press release, WestJet states they have 44 more orders. [1]. Thankyoubaby (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. CFV2 (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Despite several back-and-forth revisions with another editor, I must insist that WestJet is a low-cost carrier and fits within the definitions outlined in that article, over and above the company's own definition of itself as same -- per the Q3 2008 report given as citation.
CFV2 (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that currently WestJet does refer to itself as a high-value "low cost" carrier, but there are several factors that are contrary to it being considered a traditional low-cost airline. First of all, contrary to the low-cost carrier article, WestJet does have reserved seating, and does assign seats, unlike Southwest. They do fly to major airports (LAX, EWR, SFO, YYZ) and do so at anytime of day (unlike the article states). A lot of transfers do take place in their "hubs/focus cities", and I don't think their flight attendants also clean the planes. In terms of routes offered by both Air Canada and WestJet there is no distinction in fares or service (besides the business class booking), and in fact I would say WestJet is less of a low-cost carrier than US Airways where you have to pay for your own water. Finally, the recent link ups with Air France and KLM hint of a veering away from the LCC model. I think WestJet simply refers to itself as low cost, meaning they have low fares, but do not follow a traditional low cost carrier model. This is just my opinion though, and it's up for debate. Thankyoubaby (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey TYB. Was wondering when you'd pop up... good to see ya :)

I think that the "low cost carrier" definition outlined in the LCC article has more in common with WestJet's model than differences; in other words, WestJet does have more in common with airlines like Southwest or JetBlue than they do with "legacy" carriers. JetBlue, perhaps the most comparable US carrier to WestJet in terms of on-board service and structure, is counted amongst examples in the low-cost carrier article.

While you don't pay for water on WS flights, they do offer their "buy on board" system for sandwiches and so on - of course, "legacy" carriers have adopted these same practices as well. Oh, and WS flight attendants do clean the planes on-board between flights, unless the turn around time is long enough (and, late enough) to have professional groomers come on-board. Now you know.... ;)

Lacking another definition that can be referenced 'cleanly', and the fact that WestJet considers itself an LCC probably is more than enough justification that the article continues to consider WestJet a "low-cost carrier."

For now, anyway. Stuff changes.

My two cents. CFV2 (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"Low cost" my ass. I don't know what they are to be called formally, but their prices are EXACTLY the same as Air Canada's in 2011, i.e. about twice as much as in the US for the same flight distance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.232.152 (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, what's with listing non-injury engine problems and maintenance stuff cluttering up the "Incidents and accidents" section? I mean, really? Other airline articles don't list them in such painful detail; but, then, Air Canada's article is getting ridiculous for listing minor incidents, too.
How about just listing the ones where there are injuries? Or, like the YOW runway overrun, something that caused major disruption to the airline's operations or airports involved? Knave (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I spent a fair amount of time adding the drop-down destinations list. I lifted the layout from the Southwest Airlines 'destinations' section. If there's errors, my apologies in advance. Knave (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty unnecessary to me when there is already a separate article for the destinations. Thankyoubaby (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting about an hour or so of work.  :) I thought it was worthwhile, but hey, what the hell do I know.

But, keeping with the sake of uniformity, maybe you'd do well to can the same section off the Southwest Airlines article -- as I noted, they also have a separate 'destinations' article but a drop-down menu like the one that I had added. Seems awfully unnecessary there, too.

Anyway, I think I'm about done fighting on this article. You can have at it.

Knave (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I know you put a lot of work into it, and if you can justify why the main article needs it, it can easily be restored. :) Thankyoubaby (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

To be sure, I don't necessarily think it's *needed*, I just figured it was a solid addition to the Southwest Airlines article and would be an idea to have on the WestJet one. But, failing that, it could just as well replace the WS destinations page entirely if you figure the layout is better than what is already there.

I figured the drop-down nature of the table also helped reduce unnecessary clutter. Frankly, too, I think the WestJet article needs a bit of a rewrite... it's started to look a little disjointed because of the list of revisions and so on. There's info in there which isn't necessary vital - I mean, speculations about alliances and stuff - and, there's some repetition to the info from section to section, too.

You want to have that as a cooperative project for the New Year? Knave (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good, the drop down list is probably better than a separate article anyway, but perhaps without the flags, as many of them are very similar especially the Mexican ones. I think rewriting the entire article is a good idea for the new year, we can find some good sources and maybe even get up to be a featured article of the day - one day. Thankyoubaby (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The flags add color, and I don't mind them specifically. And, thanks for making the change which centres the province name in the centre of the row. Looks much neater. Knave (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone who didn't bother to read the discussion page axed the destinations drop-down. Oh, well. Just curious, but why do we have a separate destinations page, again? Couldn't that stuff be covered in the main article? CFV2 (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

My appologies, never thought to read this page! Stupid me! I disagree though, I think the list should be removed, the airline serves a large amount of destinations and it just isn't right for the WestJet article! Every airline that serves over 10 destinations usually has a seperate destinations page as there is enough destinations to meet the requirements for it's seperate article, as WestJet serves 66 destinations and already has a sperate article I suggest we remove the table from the airline article and keep the seperate page? Thanks! Zaps93 (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem... it's usually just me and Thankyoubaby in here; I guess we're pretty much the 'caretakers' of this article. The deletion of that table prompted me to take a look at the WP:AIRLINES page to see if they had some suggestions; I noticed that having a separate 'destinations' page in the format that Thankyoubaby has set up is the established 'best practice.' Thus the table I created is pretty much superflouous, regardless of whether the Southwest Airlines article I took influence from uses one, or not.

So the table can be deleted, so long as the separate WestJet Destinations article is properly referenced and cross-linked so it doesn't 'drift' too far from the main article.

Thanks again for checking in, here. CFV2 (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I re-added the separate destinations page to include the list of terminated destinations and some minor "further information" such as destinations only served by WestJet Vacations. I also added the flight number box, which is used on the Malaysia Airlines destinations article and when more information on code share routes comes in we can use a table like the one on the Emirates Airline article. However, I'm all for keeping the drop down box as well, maybe we should make it like a quick reference list only leaving seasonal status and start dates to the separate destinations page? Thankyoubaby (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that we have some consensus on Focus Cities and Hubs, maybe we could work on the current status section for WestJet. Some thoughts.... - WestJet has a MOU for Codeshare/alliance with Southwest. They are no longer working on Oneworld carriers. Therefore the Oneworld reference should move out and WestJet-Southwest should be in its place. - WestJet Vacations is a new and current development (WestJet vacation will be chartering whole aircraft for the first time this season. Additionally there is a lot more sun charters for Vacations division. - Discontinuance of Air Miles program. Shell Canada has replaced WestJet on the tribranded credit card. Discounts on flight redemption for WestJet rewards have ended. Are there other examples? - New frequent flyer program for Q1 or Q2 2009. - Anything else??? YYC Guy (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

We should definitely mention the WestJet Vacations, since even the route map shows these unique routes. Once WestJet announces their new frequent flyer program we can remove the Air Miles references I guess. Thankyoubaby (talk) 06:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not giving up on YHZ quite yet. But, I'm more than willing to concede that point for a bit, until it's seconded or otherwise by someone else :)

- WestJet holds its cards close to its chest regarding OneWorld, but I agree that it's just speculation right now - I haven't read any postulating aside from "We're considering all options" when it comes to that subject. There's little or no hard evidence beyond that to suggest that a OneWorld partnership will happen any time soon, and I would agree that the WestJet-Southwest code-share should be put in its place in terms of prominence - with emphasis that it will start in later 2009.

- WestJet Vacations has been around for at least a year now, so it deserves mention of course.

- Doesn't WestJet continue to reward Air Miles on flights booked on its website? [2] It would appear that people are still able to redeem Air Miles on WestJet flights as well... [3] [4]

- I had not read about that. Do you have a source citation?

Knave (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop insisiting that Edmonton is a WestJet hub; it's not. YEG is not in the same class as the WestJet "hubs" listed, and does not facilitate nearly the number of connections. YEG has as many departures as YVR, does (about 45/day)... YYC and YYZ both have about half again as many (upwards of 75/day). Knave (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I would argue YEG is at least a Secondary Hub. Having daily non-stops to places like Abbotsord, Comox or Hamilton would facilitate hub status. YEG has a total of 24 scheduled destinations (seasonal and year round) compared to YVR's 18. YEG has an average of 53 departures/day (check the schedule). The difference between YEG and YVR will increase come November... Thankyoubaby (talk) 01:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As was indicated in the start of the discussion about hubs and focus cities in August of 2005, seen below, they were determined on the number of daily departures, not on number of destinations served; I would have to agree with that.

In this regard, YVR and YEG are in the same catagory for WestJet, as each has roughly 45 daily departures. Some days YVR has maybe one or two more flights, some days YEG has more by the same difference. This is negligible.

If the change in the number of departures is dramatic come November, and becomes comparable with YYC and YYZ, then I can certainly see cause to change YEG's status to a 'hub' at that time. Knave (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand YEG has less departures than YYC with WestJet, but that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't a hub. I think it would be safe to say YYZ has way more departures than YYC for Air Canada, yet both of those are considered hubs. Thankyoubaby (talk) 06:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I must say that I can't quite understand your argument. We're talking about WestJet, not Air Canada.

YEG is most comparable to YVR in terms of daily departures; they're separated by only a small margin in terms of flights... as stated before, maybe one or two a day. Thus, both YVR and YEG should be in the same catagory, rightly, as focus cities. If any of the three cities listed in that catagory should not be, it's probably YWG - which has about a dozen less flights than YEG and YVR.

Both YEG and YVR are separated by over thirty daily departures from YYZ and YYC, which probably should be classed on their own as 'hubs.'

So, what are we arguing about?  :)

Knave (talk) 06:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The argument is that all of the hubs do not need the same frequency of departures. Using Air Canada as an example, I pointed out that both YYZ and YYC are hubs, though YYC's departures would be no where near as high as YYZ's. Just like YEG and YVR do not have as many departures a day as YYC, YEG is still poised as a hub by its destinations (Hamilton, Abbotsford etc). Thankyoubaby (talk) 06:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the example, but not sure how this applies to your assertion that YEG alone is a hub. If YEG is a hub by your estimation then YVR should as well be, too... is that correct? As YEG and YVR have (within one or two) the same number of flights per day?

I believe the Southwest Airlines article makes no distinction between "focus cities" and "hubs" - they just declare all their largest stations "focus cities," including their home base at Dallas Love Field. Would that not be an equitable solution here, to kill this argument? Just delete any distinction between "hubs" and "focus cities?" Knave (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The difference between YEG and YVR is their destinations. YEG is far better served in terms of choice of non-stop destinations. The only reason YVR has almost as many daily departures as YEG is because of a high frequency of flights to YYC. If YEG were not a hub, we would have to connect in Calgary to get to places like Phoenix or Los Angeles or Comox. Thankyoubaby (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the measure given below, when this discussion first took place in 2005, for the difference between "focus cities" and "hubs" is daily departures. Number of destinations served doesn't really enter into that conversation - and a 'hub' traditionally has a larger number of connecting passengers through than Edmonton does.

Either way, this discussion is going nowhere. Again, the Southwest Airlines article makes no distinction between "focus cities" and "hubs" - they just declare all their largest stations "focus cities," including their home base at Dallas Love Field. Would that not be an equitable solution here, to kill this argument? Just delete any distinction between "hubs" and "focus cities?"

Knave (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

According to this news article YEG is considered a hub, and confirms it is busier than YVR.[5] According to this WestJet press release [6], even Winnipeg is considered a hub. Thankyoubaby (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, we're going to argue about this until we're both blue. My solution is to simply delete any distinction between "hubs" and "focus cities" and just have all the stations listed as "focus cities" - a la the Southwest Airlines article. That would put YEG on a level playing field with the 'hubs' in terms of distinction, as well as allow the addition of other stations which are important in WestJet's system - such as YWG, as you mentioned, and YHZ... which is also an important connection node.

Is that not reasonable? Southwest and WestJet have plenty in common - heck, they're now code-share partners!  :) Knave (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will go for that. So what cities would you count as a focus? Thankyoubaby (talk) 04:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest the cities that serve as connecting points in WJ's system; YVR, YEG, YYC, YWG, YYZ and YHZ. Edited to add; not stations where there are one-of or infrequent connections - like YUL or YLW. Knave (talk) 07:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Halifax but agree with the others. Thankyoubaby (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

YHZ is negotiable, as it doesn't have the daily departures as the others. But I would submit it is a connection node for WestJet to YYT, specifically - as well as the eastern jumping-off point for charter flights to southern climes. It is referenced as a hub in this article; [7] Knave (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I made the change to one catagory but left YHZ off that list until I hear from you. I also will re-write the article so as to exclude mention of "hubs," and thus the reason for argument. Knave (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Longtime listener chiming in for the first time. I agree on the move to multiple focus cities rather than hubs. However I could only see YYC, YYZ, YEG, and YVR as focus cities. I agree with dropping YWG and YHZ from the list. While YWG has the number of points, the number of flights does not compute. If we were to call YWG a focus city, then we should add MCO and LAS to the list as these cities both have high passenger statistics than YWG or YHZ. Calling YHZ a focus city due to cnx from YYT is abit troublesome as there are only 2 dailies on YHZ-YYT and YHZ does not serve any other Maritime markets for WestJet. YYC Guy (talk) 01:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I agree... Looking at the main article, almost all the new flights originate out of YVR, YYC, YEG and YYZ. Three originate out of LAS, where the airplane will actually be based. Maybe WestJet is not focusing on YWG anymore. I would say LAS or YOW are focus cities before YHZ. Thankyoubaby (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

YWG and YHZ are both connection nodes in WestJet's system.... YWG, moreso, but of course not nearly the amount in YVR or YEG. LAS serves no connections at all, but may well change with the WN code-share at the end of 09. That can be discussed, then, of course.

But as I said, YHZ is not of concern if you don't consider it as much. I won't complain with that; I merely mentioned it due to it being the station with the most 'attention' for charter service in the Maritimes. I'm more interested in consensus, here. Knave (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright things look good the way they are now. Thankyoubaby (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

An anonymous editor tried to change it back. It's been fixed. Knave (talk) 07:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

With their growing route network I'd be willing to say YYC, YYZ, YEG and YVR are hubs and YWG, YHZ and YOW are focus cities. Thankyoubaby (talk) 02:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the status quo of one 'focus cities' desigation, like with Southwest's article, is fine. The two airlines are pretty similar in route structure and setup, anyway - not to mention they're now alliance partners. Changing it back will likely spark more argument about what's a hub or not, how to define 'hub' (number of connections versus number of departures, or whatever), which hub is higher on the list in terms of importance, and so on and so forth.

But, I agree with ya that we can\should add YHZ to the list of focus cities if you want, though -- but I'll say that YOW is still pretty much a 'spoke,' in the system, as they do not handle any connections like the other stations that you listed. But YHZ does. So that's a good call by me. Knave (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

While I agree YHZ is a focus city, I disagree that it would be classified the same as YYC and YYZ, which would therefore make them hubs. Thankyoubaby (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I think 'focus city' merely indicates a key city in WestJet's network, not a ranking of what city is more important over another. That was one of the reasons why we switched to a single classification, rather than fight endlessly about 'hubs' versus 'focus cities.' With all its connections, is YYC a key node on the network? Yes.

Is YHZ also vital because of its use as a connection node? Yes.

They both meet my own criteria for being deemed a 'focus city.' I don't think that's unreasonable. And I think that is the only question that getting a 'focus city' designation should really be answering. I mean, YHZ is the only real addition that should be made to that list, anyway - they are the only connection node in the airline's network which is missing. Knave (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I have gone through the task of counting the daily departures from various WestJet cities according to their schedule. One week was March the other in June and here are the results:

Daily Departures (Winter/Summer)

Calgary (75/70)

Toronto (57/60)

Edmonton (40/45)

Vancouver (43/44)

Winnipeg (24/22)

Kelowna (14/14)

Ottawa (10/11)

Halifax (7/13)

Based on this, I would suggest that YYC and YYZ are clear hubs, YEG and YVR are secondary hubs and YWG is a focus city. If anyone disagrees please discuss it here. Thankyoubaby (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd argue that daily departures are only part of what determines a station's importance to the overall network; not the end-all and be-all. YVR, YEG, YYC, YWG, YYZ, YHM, YOW and YHZ are also connection nodes in WestJet's system - meaning that connecting guests are common (meaning, daily) in each of those stations. The importance of that shouldn't be downplayed, I don't think.

Despite the number of daily departures, YLW is not a connection point.

But at the same time, YHM and YOW only have a handful of connections, daily, and don't have nearly the departures as the other connection stations..... so I'm not about to propose that either be listed as a 'focus city.' I'm also willing to give up on YHZ; I'll admit that the daily departures there don't warrant it being listed as a 'focus city,' either.

But, again, I don't see much point in changing the designations from having every connection node be a "focus city" to trying to divide it up into several catagories over daily departures. I'll point, again, to the Southwest Airlines article for precedent on this - stations like LAS and MDW, in their case, are arguably "hubs" in terms of daily departures but are put in the same pot as SAN and MCO in the right-hand infobox, without all this argument. Now, I see no problem with ranking 'focus cities' by daily departures if it makes you feel better; That could be a way to compromise -- if you want.

In my own opinion, dividing up these stations in the manner you propose will just open the door to pissing contests between folks; I mean, I used to have to delete YUL on this article all the time, years ago, because some folks were convinced that it was an "important hub" for WS. lol. But really, I think that sort of thing is more of a distraction from the more important arguments and revisions needed in this article.... at least until WestJet decides to publicly designate stations by their importance. They haven't, to my knowledge.

I'm tired with trying to measure it -- because we can argue back and forth about what yardstick should be used to figure it, forever. We've wasted enough time, already. Knave (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

We can leave as is for now, I'll just change the order to coordinate with the departures, like the Southwest article. Thankyoubaby (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thank you.

We can always come back to this discussion in the future. But just so that we don't get unnecessarily distracted, maybe we can agree on a six-month grace period while we cooperate on polishing the rest of the article? Knave (talk) 08:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear CFV2 (or anyone else reading this), do you think we should add Montreal to the focus cities? I've noticed WestJet has been adding a lot of new non-stop routes from there. Also, the only cities with year-round international service are Calgary, Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg and Montreal. Secondly, how do you feel about the "hub" thing now? Toronto is undeniably a hub, as you pretty much have to connect there to go to Florida, the Caribbean and Atlantic Canada. Basically every destination in WestJet's network has non-stops to either Calgary, Toronto or Vancouver (except Yellowknife). So I'd be willing to upgrade those three to hubs and leave the rest as focus cities. Or leave it the way it is, but YYC and YYZ hardly classify as mere focus cities in my opinion. =) Sincerely, Thankyoubaby (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Thankyoubaby... happy new year! My opinion is this; if you keep with the definition of focus city as laid out by its wikipedia article, then, yes, Montreal qualifies. Maybe Las Vegas does, too....

And WestJet's structure appears to be pretty much a hybrid of the traditional hub-and-spoke system and the point-to-point model used by Southwest; YYC, YVR, YYZ - and to a lesser degree YEG, YWG and even YHZ - all are used as connection points for people going through the airline's network to other destinations, but there are quite a few milk-runs as well.

My dogged desire to stick to the single, simplified list was simply to avoid the fights over whether city X qualifies as a hub, but city Y does not - or what the qualifiers were. Reading the relevant articles, it seems pretty clear, or at least workable; so long as we stick to the criteria laid out there, talk about changes to such a list before they're made, and ask people to refer to that conversation before arbitrarily changing the list, I see no conflict.

Does that sound all right? If so, what do we do now? CFV2 (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree we should talk through this. I think we can add YUL now and discuss the others. So, YYZ and YYC are definitely hubs, I don't think there is any debate over that. From there it gets a little tricky. I think YVR is a hub because of the Hawaii flights and as of this summer will have twice daily to LAX (more than YYC) and daily to SFO (same as YYC) and will act as the connecting place for the Kitchener flights. YEG isn't necessarily a hub, since you basically don't have to connect there - Fort McMurray flights can connect through YYC. That just gives Yellowknife and Grande Prairie in the summer. Maybe its a reliever hub/secondary hub or just a focus city? Ever since YWG lost the Saskatoon and Regina flights it doesn't really seem like a major connecting airport anymore. I don't know what other criteria we should go by? What are your thoughts? Thankyoubaby (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

My initial preference is to list YYZ and YYC as hubs, only; their connection traffic (YYC in the West and YYZ, to Florida and eastern Canada) would seem to be over and above many of the other points in the system. From my view, it doesn't appear that YVR's connection traffic (in large part to Hawaii) from other points in WestJet's network places it in a catagory over and above other 'focus cities' in the list. Not yet, anyway....

I think the criteria for determining whether a station qualifies as a 'hub' or 'focus city' should be dependant both on the number of destinations served, the number of flights per day, and the connection traffic. The first two are probably pretty easy to figure out and verifiable, but I don't know if the last is so easy to verify. I will look through WestJet's published reports and maybe some statistics given by airport authorities.

If you want a place where I'd like to start from, here'd be my list;

Hubs: YYC, YYZ

Focus Cities: YVR, YEG, YWG, YUL, YHZ and LAS

Of course, I'm not going to fight if you don't think some of these stations don't measure up. You seem to know the airline's network pretty well -- so, thoughts? CFV2 (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, everything looks fine to me, so shall we make the changes? We can watch to see if anyone tries to revert and direct them to this discussion. Thankyoubaby (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Go ahead - let me know if you need my help, formatting work, or any input. I'll be around.  :) CFV2 (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

How the f### is LAS a focus city? You can connect on WS via YVR, YEG, YHZ, YUL, etc. but you cannot connect on to another WS flight via LAS as that would be cabotage. LAS is a very busy down line station, not a focus city. If LAS is a focus city for WS, then FRA, LHR, MIA, FLL, LAX, SFO, CUN and NRT are focus cities for Air Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phobal (talk • contribs) 18:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

LAS seems to fit the definition of focus city as per that article; it's among WS' most-served destinations. The suggestion was also made when the interline agreement between WS and WN was still in place; it was logical to assume that LAS would be a interline hub for the two.

Looks like it's been dropped, anyway - if you did that, thank you! - so the argument's a little moot, now. Just explainin'. :) CFV2 (talk) 09:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

While WS' amount of traffic compared to other intl airlines into LAS is VERY impressive, lots of one-way, terminating service, supplemented by code shares does not make a station a focus city. Again, LHR and FRA should be focus cities for AC if LAS is a focus city for WS. Jus' sayin', jus sayin'.Phobal 05:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

What exactly does this term mean, and why is it used repeatedly? There are all 737s in their fleet, so what's the distinction between the normal ones and the "Next Generation" ones? 24.76.141.128 03:09, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

• It's identified in Boeing 737. I could not find a way to cleanly link this since it is near the end of the history section. If someone can see a clean way to make it a link feel free to do so. Vegaswikian 00:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• NG aircraft are quieter, more fuel efficient, larger, and offer more leg room as well as LiveTV on some aircraft. Phoenix2 05:03, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

The NG 737 aircraft are a re-designed version of the venerable B737 family. While the body design may look the same the aircraft is considered to be so different from the original models that a pilot cannot automatically fly the NG's just because he/she can fly the classics. The cockpit on a NG is a "glass" cockpit dominated by 6 Display Units or screens. The aircraft integrates the lastest in navigational technology. The NG's are outfitted with low slung, high bypass CFM engines while the older models come with a low bypass. fuel inefficent JTD engine. The NG comes in four different sizes ranging from the 600, 700, 800 and finally the 900. The difference between each is length and therefore capacity.

737NGs (for the most part) are certified for ETOPS (Extended Twin Engine Operations), which allow long range flights over water (Mainland to Hawaii/Mainland to Europe). The Older 737s (Series -100 thru -500) were not. This is an impressive destinction, allowing smaller carriers with this airplane a bite of the cherry on long range routes. For the Most Part, 737NGs are also certified for winglets, which earlier models (with the exception of a few Series -300s) have not. These "Winglets" (Winglets) can reduce fuel burn by 4%, enabling longer range and more efficent use of fuel. The engines also pollute a noticable amount less. These are all impressive destinctions over the older 737s.---VonVeezelsnider 00:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This explanation is not completely correct with regards to the engine descriptions. While the 737NG does have high bypass CFM engines, so does the 2nd generation 737s (-300, -400, and -500), albeit an older version. Only the 1st generation 737s (-100 and -200) have the low bypass JT8D engines. -- Hawaiian717 18:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone may want to take to the time to convert the destinations to what appears to be a standard format by country and state/provience. See United Airlines destinations or America West Airlines destinations. And yes, they can be in a new article or left here. Vegaswikian 00:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Done by myself as of July 20th.Knest 03:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

If anyone knows the actual Westjet hubs and focus cities, perhaps in order of daily departures, that would be appreciated; I don't think I have it correct at this time. Phoenix2 05:02, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

WestJet's hubs are Calgary and Toronto. I would say the focus cities are Vancouver and if I had another in there it would be Winnipeg,and Edmonton.

WestJet[User talk:WestJet]]

Westjet's only hub is Calgary with about 65 daily departures. Vancouver and Toronto are focus cities (trade back an forth regarding frequency ranking of 2nd or 3rd; they have 40-45 daily departures. Edmonton is a solid fourth place.

WestJet Western Canada operations hub is located in Calgary while in Eastern Canada, it is located in Hamilton. Nowhere does it say on WestJet's website does it say that Toronto's Pearson is used as WestJet's hub. http://c3dsp.westjet.com/guest/about/historyTemplate.jsp

Also, please show your signatures when editing the talk page.

--Feelgood 01:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The eastern hub IS Toronto. It does not say it on the website, however I asked WestJet and they verified it as being Toronto. All you have to do is ask. Their only "base" is Calgary. Archer 10:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Their website states that Hamilton was their eastern hub in 1999, but makes no mention of a switch to Toronto. --Kmsiever 14:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Toronto is the eastern hub, as they have a full connection facility and have tail-to-tail connections, as well as over 40 flights a day. Calgary by comparison has over 50-60 in a day. No other station comes close to this many flights in a day - Winnipeg, Vancouver and Edmonton are about the next in line. Hamilton is now really a "spoke" on WestJet's system, with less than 10 flights a day. By this measure, it is not a hub or focus city - Halifax gets roughly the same number of flights. --Knave 21:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Toronto being a hub. Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, and perhaps even Kelowna deserve "hub" status if you can arbitrarily choose Toronto as a hub. Personally, my definition of a hub would be where crew is based. In-Flight, and the Pilots are based completely in Calgary. I think you can even listen to a WestJet conference call a couple of quarters ago and they discuss whether Toronto would become a hub with crews based there. (Not entirely certain a reference to hub was used, but it would certainly back my argument up with some sound evidence.) Calgary is a unique city in the WestJet network and as such should be the only "hub" listed. Toronto may have the second most non-stop flights after Calgary, but it is being labeled a "hub" arbitrarily. That is to say the only reason is it labeled a hub is because someone decided the amount of Non-stops out of Vancouver wasn't enough to consider it a hub, which in my opinion is silly. The question I ask is how do you differentiate between Calgary and Toronto if they are both hubs then? There is a major difference and one that should be ultimately reflected in hub status. So I strongly suggest hub to be used only with Calgary as it is the only destination in WestJet's network to have Pilot and In-Flight bases. Oh and if you don't agree with me, try finding a job as a Pilot or Flight Attendant at the Toronto hub. :) --Dbroda 13:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Toronto's hub status is based on the fact that it has connection flights on a large scale, rivalling only Calgary; it is also the major centre for their cargo operation and other parts. No other city comes close.

If you work for WestJet, feel free to call and ask someone in their Operations centre if they have only one or two major hubs, and which cities they are. Myself or someone else will be happy to tell you.  :) Knave 02:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

WestJet has no hubs, per se. Its flights are based on a point-to-point model. Anything that looks like a hub is purely coincidence.

If YUL is to be considered a 'focus' city based on departures, then there are other candidates more worthy - like YWG and YHZ, both of which have frequent connection flights that YUL does not. YUL is a 'spoke' on the WestJet system. Knave 20:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you that Toronto is indeed considered a hub by Westjet. The article is correct in the fact that the eastern hub was originally Hamilton, then was changed to Toronto in 2004. When this change was made, Westjet traffic at the Hamilton airport dropped significantly to just a handful of flights per day. I took the suggestion and asked. This information comes from a current employee and former manager of Westjet who are based in the Hamilton airport. SJM 15 January 2007

I have removed YWG as a focus city. YWG is not a focus city for WestJet with the exception of YQR and YXE traffic to YYZ. However, YYC also porvides this functionality for people from Saskatchewan. For example, YWG averages about 21 flights per day in May while YEG averages about 40. For YWG to be a focus city, it must have signficant O&D operations (like YEG with 40 departures) and limited connection options (through flights do not count a connection passengers).

Also from a pure airline technical perspective, WestJet does not have any hubs. A hub would require over 250 mainline flights per day. Only Air Canada in YYZ has a hub in Canada. A focus city is any city that has hub like properties (i.e flights to destinations other than hub cities, large O&D market with small number of utilized connection possibilities). That said, airlines outside USA and Europe tend to designate their primary airport as a hub, hence the positive factor to keeping YYZ and YYC as hubs for WestJet. YEG and YVR are focus cities as each has about 35-45 daily flights.

WestJet is in considering the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner for it's fleet. The aircraft will enter service around 2013. It will be used to expand routes into the Caribbean and Europe. They are also in serious talks about joining oneWorld. FlyAirCanada 11:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Really? Can you provide reference for your information? The OneWorld info is not surprising, as they have been contemplating this for several years, but the Boeing 787 is surprising. Especially since Wings Magazine just published in this months edition that Westjet has just secured a deal with a Singapore company to lease 9 more 737's once their current delivery schedule with Boeing expires. SJM 20 February 2007

Here's a link, I will provide more information soon. FlyAirCanada 11:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/WireFeedRedirect?cf=GlobeInvestor/config&vg=BigAdVariableGenerator&date=20070215&archive=gam&slug=RTICKERMAIN15#

I noticed US flags have been added to the fleet section. I have not seen this on any other articles. Is it really nessacary? To me it seems confusing. Greenboxed 17:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Westjet.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 this Wikipedia article 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. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is 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.

BetacommandBot 04:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Calgaryherald westjet.jpg 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 this Wikipedia article 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. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he's upset that he didn't get his way; he's tried three times to blank the article... CFV2 (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

China Eastern and Qantas have been added to the interline agreement page, both where released recently as partners. — Preceding comment added by IndigouFox (talk • contribs) 19:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Alitalia just announced as a new partner as of 14:43 28 June 2011 (MTS), not sure why someone keeps removing China Eastern as a partner as they are confirmed so I have re-added them to the list. — Preceding comment added by IndigouFox (talk • contribs) 20:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I've finally registered for an account now as well, just so it's easier to track my updates for other people. — Preceding comment added by IndigouFox (talk • contribs) 20:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Now every airline has a source, if you can find a source for those other airlines, please list them. Thankyoubaby (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

The WestJet Emerging Media team would like to lend our services to this page and help keep the article up to date.

We'd love to provide you with information you'd like to help keep things current.

We realize there are lots of folks who've put in hard work maintaining the page, so don't want to ruin anyone's work.

How do you feel about us hanging around the talk page, and perhaps updating key facts and figures?

Thanks, Darren — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darrenhailes (talk • contribs) 22:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Anything we are missing right now? Thankyoubaby (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's a few to get you started: We don't technically have a hub in Toronto, but we do regard it as a focus city. We used to brand WestJet Lounges but don't have an umbrella service by that name any more. More and more, we include westjetvacations.com as an official website. We now have over 9,000 employees, and our revenues in 2011 were over $3 billion CAD. Do you want some references or do you want us to leave you to your own devices for that? ;) ~Darren — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darrenhailes (talk • contribs) 21:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh thanks for that. A reference about the hubs/focus cities would be great. That has been an ongoing debate here for a while. Thankyoubaby (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that would be a great help! The best way to get your updated information onto Wikipedia is by posting relevant information on WestJet's corporate webpage (or even the main page where relevant), then give us the reference here. That way, we can link to it as a reference, and thus be verifiable. The Legacy (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Anything regarding hubs\focus cities would have to be compared against how those terms are defined by the industry, and more specifically by the Wikipedia articles on airline hubs and focus cities. While WestJet may not define its operation in Toronto as a "hub," it does seem to meet the criteria as outlined in that article.

And while I do appreciate WestJet's Emerging Media team hanging out on this talk page, suggestions for improvements will have to be taken with a heavy grain of salt (in the interests of NPOV) and references and citations for specific facts will be needed before changes are made, preferably by a third party source. Someone's say-so won't cut it. CFV2 (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey everyone, by the definitions on the Wikipedia page, Toronto is a WestJet hub. It's not our corporate definition of our Toronto operation, but we're want to make sure Wikipedia is easy to understand for anyone using it. Cheers. -Darren darrenhailes (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I've noticed that this page is missing a "Incidents and accidents" section. Even though WestJet has an enviously good safety record of no major accidents (with the exception of the very understandingly normal hiccups that any airline would be forced to deal with), Wikipedia typically adds this section to any major airline page, even if there are no accidents. Emirates for example has not had any fatal accidents, though they've listed two major incidents that affected their aircraft fairly substantially. According to Avherald there's not been anything worse than injured flight attendants, the worst being a minor wingstrike from 2005. Perhaps adding this section with a note stating that WestJet has not suffered a major accident or incident since it opened in 1996, and if circumstances warrant, add one or two of the less typical major incidents, like the wingstrike incident. What are your thoughts? The Legacy (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

(If anyone from WestJet is reading this, feel free to weigh in, because I like and have flown with WestJet, and I love WestJet's safety record. Some details on WestJet's operational safety records would be useful for this site, and for those researching carriers, being able to see how stellar WestJet really is would likely help sales) The Legacy (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The WestJet article on Wikipedia is not intended to help WestJet's sales; see Wikpedia:Neutral point of view. Any list of specific incidents or accidents would have to comply with WP:AIRCRASH as noted by Compdude. CFV2 (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Please remember that any incidents added to this article must comply with WP:AIRCRASH. Thanks, Compdude¹²³ 18:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I've seen a few news articles specifically about Gregg Saretsky, WestJet's current CEO, in the past few months (like this one; http://bpoy.albertaventure.com/business-person-of-the-year-2012-gregg-saretsky-westjet/ ) ... I think he meets the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability. Sean Durfy and Clive Beddoe already have their own entries, so I figured I'd start a stub for the airline's current president. Thoughts? CFV2 (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on WestJet. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121107030849/http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/1999/07/13/westjet990713.html to http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/1999/07/13/westjet990713.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090429072033/http://www.theglobeandmail.com:80/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040406.waircan0406/BNStory/Business/ to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040406.waircan0406/BNStory/Business/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090816183052/http://www.cbc.ca:80/money/story/2004/01/14/westjet_040114.html to http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2004/01/14/westjet_040114.html
• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2004/02/04/westjet_040204.html

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on WestJet. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121107030849/http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/1999/07/13/westjet990713.html to http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/1999/07/13/westjet990713.html
• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2004/02/04/westjet_040204.html

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: 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on WestJet. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090322042856/http://www.cbc.ca:80/money/story/2004/02/04/westjet_040204.html to http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2004/02/04/westjet_040204.html

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: 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)