This article is within the scope of the
Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of
open tasks and
task forces. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Virgin Australia Regional Airlines is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
Australia and
Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
The assertion that share prices will treble has no citations, sources or explanations for why this may be the case. It smells like a feeble attempt at stimulating demand for the thing it is discussing (i.e. dual listing). —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
124.169.207.238 (
talk)
12:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Clarification required.
It says in the Article w/o reference: "Then in 1983 Skywest proposed to merge with East-West Airlines, who were both owned at the time by the Devereaux group."
Can this be substantiated? IMO East-Weest was then owned by Bryan Grey and Duke Minks, respectively their East-West Development Pty. Ltd..
Correct seems to me rather:
"In December 1983 it was attempted to sell East-West for "more than AUD 20 million" according to industry sources to Perth-based Skywest Airlines. In particular the NSW government opposed the plan."
I notice someone moved the Skywest article to 'Virgin Australia Regional Airlines' without any discussion. Yes, Skywest has been absorbed and subsumed by the Virgin Australia group. However, the alternative is to leave the existing article, under the Skywest name, to stand as a historic document of how Skywest Airlines was. I would prefer the Skywest article to remain.--Lester07:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Fair enough, seems a bit silly to go and change every single reference of 'Skywest' to Virgin. If there's no objections I will happily undo my changes.
Stevo345 (
talk)
03:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)reply
If you are suggesting that the page move be undone, then I oppose that, but certainly all mentions of Skywest pre-takeover should remain in the article, as that was the company's name at the time the events took place.
YSSYguy (
talk)
10:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)reply
I Would normally agree with
YSSYguy, it was done this way for Virgin Blue > Virgin Australia. But they have bought out another company and turned it into Virgin. But it isn't technically a new company so i am not sure what is best to be honest. --
JetBlast (
talk)
10:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)reply
If the company had been shut down and relaunched, as Qantas did with Impulse/Jetstar, then a new article would be appropriate, but the only thing being changed is the name; it's still a separate airline using the same aircraft operating under the same AOC.
Ditto per YSSYguy, it's not a shutdown and a creation of a new airline using a existing AOC (ala Impulse into Jetstar), but it is a direct takeover of Skywest using their existing assets and AOC. Article should stay where it is, but the history and references to Skywest should remain. Sb617 (
Talk)00:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)reply