Talk:China Airlines

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bad Picture Placement[edit]

Why is there a picture of the 737-800 on fire on the incidents section? There is not one airline article that I know of with a picture displaying diabled aircraft. If i knew how to do it myself, I would remove it. If somoene cal help with this please assist. The title of the aircraft incident is not even displayed correctly. I'll try to fix that in a moment. The picture is in the article "China Airlines Flight 120" where it should be. -KC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcuello (talk • contribs) 03:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture has been removed. Pictures of crashed aircraft within the main article of an airline is inconsistent with all other airline articles. Picture remains however in subarticle of wreck. Kcuello (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mainland Flights[edit]

I'm not sure that any of this is true. China Airlines has never flown flights into Mainland China, and the PRC-Taiwan dispute has never impacted the airline.

China Airlines has had to battle the Republic of China on Taiwan's shaky relationship with the People's Republic of China on mainland China since its beginning. At times, ironically, it has not even been allowed to fly into parts of the country after which the airline is named. Despite this, the carrier has remained profitable.
I know, it's horrible, they should really stop stealing China's good name and call it Taiwan Airline or something similarly appropriate. Beside, unless they want to reunify, they are not part of China. 24.89.245.62 03:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--RR

Why else would it not fly into mainland China if it weren't for the political dispute? --Jiang

In the 1960's, basically no one except the Russians was flying international flights into Mainland China. The possibility of flying into the PRC really wasn't an option for China Airlines until the late 1970's even if it wasn't based in Taiwan. --Roadrunner

But at the present moment, there are no scheduled flights into the mainland. The fact that this news article exists may mean something: http://www.china.org.cn/english/travel/59892.htm. We know for a fact that direct flights are not allowed, but the question is whether they're allowed to fly into their airspace, etc.
Actually, China airlines did fly to Shanghai recently: http://www.travelbiz.com.au/articles/0a/0c013b0a.asp {dead link}
--Jiang 05:33 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/jan/27/theairlineindustry.china 78.150.137.87 (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does China Airlines currently fly into mainland airspace? I would like to believe that statement is true. What do you mean "PRC-Taiwan dispute has never impacted the airline"? Why else would there be no flights into mainland China, at the present moment? --Jiang

I consider that PRC-Taiwan dispute has impacted the airline a lot. As the article says, The ROC flags on its airplanes have been replaced by blossoms. The article also suggests some service to Communist China as well. Due to frequent accidents, I have heard of these opinions: to boycott China Airlines but not well organized, to privatize the operation, or even to dismantle the Airlines.--Jusjih 04:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou listed as destinations? Davidreid 10:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are seasonal destinations, as in Lunar New Year season schedules charters. --butterfly0fdoom 01:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just Like Heaven[edit]

How come when you Search for Just Like Heaven it redirects to China Airlines? I do not think they have anything to do with each other. Someone should fix it if I am correct.

To anyone want to update this page[edit]

  • China Airlines doesn't have the domestic flights in Taiwan, flights to Osaka, Paris, Busan, and London. Please check http://www.china-airlines.com/en/about/about.htm before update it.
  • China Airlines is not a state-owned corporation of ROC nominally. It belongs to China Aviation Development Foundation (中華航空事業發展基金會-航發會). If it's a state-owned company, the chairman has to report the status of the company in the Legislative Yaun (the parliament in ROC). The chairman of CAL doesn't have to do that. It's a prviate company nominally.

Why does the writer uses the word "Republic of China" repeatedly?[edit]

This is ridiculous, we all know that talking in this fashion will only confuse people: People no longer called Taiwan, "Republic of China", that name ended its legitimacy once the communist party took over mainland China in 1949 and created "The People's Republic of China". The name is outdated and is not recognized internationally, besides, people avoided calling it like that because of political issues involved. Not sure what the author's intention is, but we should simply refer to it as "Taiwan" or "Chinese Taipei". -- unknown — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avcomth (talk • contribs)

Please leave politics out of Wikipedia. -- Kschang77 08:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Taiwan is the common word for the "Republic of China". It has nothing to do with politics. Indeed why use 17 letters to identify a country when you could use six letters, unless you want to express a political point? 22:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kransky (talk • contribs)
Now that's political. Taiwan is NOT a country. 24.89.245.62 03:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what you think, the Chinese Civil War technically isn't over, and, regardless of how either side wants to perceive things, "China" is a land mass controlled by the PRC, and "Taiwan" is an island controlled by the ROC. Thus, any geographic references would use "China" and "Taiwan" while any political references would use "People's Republic of China" and "Republic of China". Butterfly0fdoom 19:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually in terms of the land masses it is "Mainland China" and "Taiwan" - Using only "China" and "Taiwan" can introduce POV and isn't specific enough. Using Mainland China and Taiwan makes it clear. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr Unknown, your assumptions couldn't be further from the truth. The Republic of China held China's UN seat until the 70s. The ROC has never ceased to be China in legal terms. The wrong common usage ingrained in your brain is just proof how Western media is trying to push a faulty narrative. --2001:16B8:3121:2500:E910:D27D:32D9:5AA7 (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any truth that PRC actually tried suing for the name "China Airline"?[edit]

I remember hearing a rumor a while back that PRC actually tried to sue China Airline out of their name, and only established "Air China" after their attempt failed. Any one know if there's any truth to this? -- Kschang77 08:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can only say I never heard of this.--H.T. Chien / 眼鏡虎 (Discuss|Contributions) 19:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, if you hear it on the internet, it MUST be true. 24.89.245.62 03:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Air China Is one of six airlines that diverged from Civil Aviation Administration of China, in 1989. Shencypeter (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet information[edit]

Before changing the fleet information numbers for the 747s, check China Airline's website (http://www.china-airlines.com/en/check/service-4-04.htm). The provided URL also includes the tail numbers. --butterfly0fdoom 2006-12-25 T 16:50 UTC

Furthermore, until Boeing and/or China Airlines release a statement regarding a 747-8i order, do not put any indication of the 748i in the fleet table thing. butterfly0fdoom 2006-12-25 T 18:59 UTC

And, once again, do not make any edits in the article regarding China Airlines buying any airplanes until China Airlines themselves announce it. The Taiwanese media apparently has a tendency to publish speculation as fact. butterfly0fdoom Wednesday, 2007-08-01T19:45UTC

Air Algerie ?[edit]

Do China Airlines have code-share agreement with Air Algerie? I can't remember if I have heard that?Tsungyenlee (converse)、(Contribs) 16:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ninoy assassination.jpg[edit]

Image:Ninoy assassination.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 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 23:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ninoy assassination.jpg[edit]

Image:Ninoy assassination.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 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 18:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents and Accidents censoring[edit]

An anon IP address has been repeatedly censoring the Incidents and Accidents section. (See diff). Last week, a China Airlines flight struck turbulence while landing at Bali. 30 passengers injured, some in critical condition, but no deaths. Incidents like this are part of an airline's history, like it or not. There's no point censoring information like this from the article.--Lester 01:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • I think that it's correct to do so. It is unfair how this airline specifically has been working hard to improve their records, and how people keep on emphasizing tiny everyday details. These scenerios have happened to multiple other airlines, but they are never listed out one by one on Wiki. So, I agree that only serious accidents should me put up for fairness issues.

-A.L. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.171.13.43 (talk) 11:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


RESPONSE TO ALLEGED ACCIDENT AND INCIDENT CENSORING

It is me that is modifying the Incidents and Accidents section. I am NOT censoring. I am trying to make things equal on Wikipedia. On a daily basis, many accidents and incidents occur to various airlines, that are not documented on Wikipedia. The person above, has captured my complete sentiments. I think that China Airlines is being unfairly targeted.

If you visit http://www.avherald.com/ and compare the accidents and incidents for Air Canada, British Airways, Cathay Pacific, Emirates, Singapore Airlines, United Airlines, ETC, to see if they have corresponding Wikipedia updates. They do NOT have ALL accidents and incidents listed. Last I checked, there are hundreds of accidents and incidents that are not listed in Wikipedia, especially not on a line-by-line basis.

I have also noted that this company's main competitor, EVA Air, does not have its accidents and incidents listed as detailed:

  • 1.) 13 Jan 2008 1245L EVA Air MD90 Flight BR266 Cambodia with a pressurization failure due to open door (See http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UBT/is_/ai_n24269636). This was not reported on Wikipedia for EVA. But China Airlines has an entry for a similar pressurization failure listed in its section.
  • 3.) 19 MAR 2006 EVA Air had to deal with an unruly passenger. (http://publishing.yudu.com/Aosc/asiap06vol12issue2/resources/6.htm). This was not noted on Wikipedia for EVA. But China Airlines has an entry for unruly passengers. Can you imagine if each unruly passenger incident were mentioned for all the US airlines on Wikipedia?
  • 4.) 16 NOV 2005 MD-11 cargo plane takes off on taxiway instead of runway at Anchorage (http://aviation-safety.net/news/news.php?var=200511%25). This was not reported on Wikipedia for EVA. But China Airlines has a wikipedia entry for a similar takeoff from taxiway from the exact same airport.

Here are some of the Accidents and Incidents that I wonder, why they were inserted in the first place:

  • A.) 1983 August 21, Philippine Senator Benigno Aquino, Jr. while disembarking from Flight 811 a regularly scheduled flight from Taipei to Manila, was assassinated by several aviation security men on the tarmac of the Manila International Airport.

- How is this China Airline's fault? In addition, it was on the apron, away from the aircraft. This has no bearing on China Airlines. So why are we pointing this out as China Airlines' problem?

  • B.) 1985 February 19, Flight 006, a Boeing 747SP, went out of control, recovered, and made an emergency landing at San Francisco.

- Aircraft lose control, due to many reasons: Pilot error, hydraulics failure, electrical failure, etc. Nobody reports those incidents on Wikipedia, where no deaths have occurred. So why are we pointing this out in China Airlines?

  • C.) 2002, Flight 11, an Airbus A340, departed Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport, Anchorage, Alaska at night from taxiway Kilo instead of runway 32. The aircraft was not damaged, and no-one was injured.

- Once again, nobody was killed or injured. And this sort of thing, unfortunately happens everywhere else, but is not reported. So why only China Airlines?

  • D.) 2006 July 19, Flight 1682 traveling from Ho Chi Minh City to Taipei, had to make an emergency landing at Kaohsiung International Airport after a Vietnamese-American couple, who were reportedly drunk, attacked flight attendants. The husband broke the inner windowpane in the plane's cabin with his elbow. The noise caused a commotion on the plane, and two Taiwanese attendants who were fluent in Vietnamese tried to calm him down. However, he took a swing at one of the attendants. A male flight attendant was summoned to restrain the heavily built man, while the pilots asked for permission to make an emergency landing, claiming that the plane had been hijacked. The plane landed successfully without incident, and continued to Taipei.

- Why is this relevant? Can you imagine if each unruly passenger incident were mentioned for all the US airlines on Wikipedia? Why are we singling out China Airlines?

  • E.) 2007 June 27, China Airlines Flight AE845, an A330-300, bound from Kaoshiung to Hong Kong experienced a 'flameout' in both engines. The plane landed safely after avionics restarted the engines automatically. Neither the aircraft's crew nor the passengers were fully aware of the flameout.

- Once again, flameout incidents that do not involve crashes, are not reported on in Wikipedia. So why are we specifically reporting it for China Airlines?

  • F.)2007 December 8, a door on Flight 008 to Los Angeles had loud wind sounds shooting through the door cracks while climbing at 1000 feet, prompting a return to Taipei. An investigation into the matter found that the door had not been closed properly by catering staff.

- Again, door pressurization issues happen frequently (unfortunately), and they are not reported on Wikipedia. So why are we singling out China Airlines for it?

  • G.) 2008 September 20, 13 people were injured, many with broken bones, after a China Airlines Boeing 747-400 en route from Taipei struck severe turbulence during its approach into Bali.

- Here we go again. Severe turbulence happens frequently (unfortunately), and they are not reported on Wikipedia. So why are we still singling out China Airlines for it?


It is unfair to single out a particular airline and report ALL accidents and incidents on a line-by-line basis, especially when Wikipedia entries for other airlines do not report ALL accidents and incidents. To do so, would imply a smear campaign against this company.
So I should ask you, in the interest of equality, if you are going to do this against China Airlines, are you going to do it for all the other airlines to? And if not, why are you so insistent against China Airlines? Have they wronged you in some way that you must smear them?
That's my two cents. KCL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.137.215.234 (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I agree with the above comments, that China Airlines is being unfairly targeted. The accidents and incidents section is definitely not in line with the rest of wikipedia airliner pages. There are airlines with way more incidents that aren't reported (especially larger airlines). My vote is to clean it up, and make it more fair. ~syu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.170.88.247 (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The sample template from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airlines might be of help in deciding which should be kept or deleted. Also, it will be great if the IP editors created their own accounts if you do not already have one to facilitate easier discussion on improving the article. Planenut(Talk) 03:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
**Accidents or incidents should only be included if:
*** The event was fatal to either aircraft occupants or persons on the ground;
*** The event involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport;
*** The event resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry.
I quite disagree with the removal. You should think the opposite way.
Instead of removing article (since you consider people are unfair to CAL) you are free to report incidents onto other airline pages and help the encyclopaedia coverage expand. Trying to compare incidents rate between Taiwanese airliners is even more ridiculous.

Some accidents you removed because there were no injuries do not follow Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airlines
- Aircraft lose control, due to many reasons: Pilot error. This was actually a major incident please remember that the aircraft was partially destroyed and needed serious reparation (over 10193 hours on airframe) see http://www.747sp.com/History.asp?22805 . This incident should be kept according to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airlines

- Once again, flameout incidents that do not involve crashes are not reported on in Wikipedia. So why are we specifically reporting it for China Airlines?
Maybe because BOTH engine flameout on a dual engine aircraft are dangerous and absolutely not common? The fact the pilot doesn’t even notice the flameouts isn't important? It is critical to safety. Remember this resulted in airbus informing engine manufacturers of potential defect leading GE to investigate on CF6-80 engines and modyfying its engines design and therefore should appear according to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airlines.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.234.33.50 (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet Table[edit]

An IP user made some major reorganisation of the fleet table which included the schedules and labelling travel classes as F/J/C/Y instead of naming them. If there are no objections, I will revert the table to a more standard profile. Planenut(Talk) 10:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - the cabin sections seems a bit over the top as well! MilborneOne (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey sorry I don't know How to edit Wikipedia, but I would like to inform everyone that the Charter Boeing 737-800 has been sold and is no longer in the China Airlines or Mandarin Airlines Fleet! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.171.187.167 (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Why it is called China Airlines?[edit]

China Airlines is based in Taiwan, not in mainland China. I think the name "China" sounds confusing. I think the airline should be renamed from China Airlines into Taiwan Airlines. --JJ98 (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because it is the flag carrier of the Republic of China. MilborneOne (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, Republic of China is Taiwan, correct? --JJ98 (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taiwan is an island the Republic of China is a country you just need to read the relevant articles as it has nothing really to do with the the article or the airline. MilborneOne (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly we no longer have these separate articles. Jeremy (talk) 09:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not something we really need to discuss. You can ask the airline/company/government why it's named that. -Multivariable (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • JJ98, unfortunately you got many things wrong. The Republic of China is not Taiwan! Here is a very simple and factual explanation: Taiwan is an island. The government in control of this island is the Republic of China. The Republic of China also controls parts of Fujian province, which is mostly administered by the People's Republic. There is no country officially called Taiwan. This state has yet to be declared, which would resume the Chinese Civil War. However, people have pushed Wikipedia to name the article on the Republic of China "Taiwan". Due to Wikipedia's influence and people's ignorance of the legal status, most people think there is a country called Taiwan. Wikipedia is now indeed in a very awkward situation that there is a company called China Airlines, which doesn't conform Wikipedia's naming policy for the respective countries. However, it doesn't contradict anything factually. Taiwan is still some sort of China. Your confusions arise from the wrong common usage, which is also Wikipedia's fault. In order to change the company's name, I would kindly ask you to send an inquiry to the company. --2001:16B8:3121:2500:E910:D27D:32D9:5AA7 (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a point of order, if a Taiwan independent of the ROC were recognized and then a war happened it would no longer be a civil war but just a regular old war. The civil war was between the KMT and the CCP not China and Taiwan or the PRC and ROC (remember the PRC isn't even established until the end of the civil war). The rest of your argument is just as absurd, see [1]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your point of view seems very biased. The brand that you can read on their planes is "China Airlines", full stop. It's a private company so this company is free to choose another brand name (or not). Taïwan name versus China name is other political problem. The article states there might be a confusion with Air China, not to mention
Way beyond the scope of discussion, but for keeps sake. you must make a distinction between Republic of China and Peoples Republic of China which are two distinct government entities in control or claiming to have control over the territory Taiwan. As such we have had different outcome regarding the handling of the pandemic. We have a Chunghwa Telecom which is the Romanized spelling of Republic of China Telecom. In Fact, the Romanized name of China Airlines is also Chunghwa Airlines, but they did not register the corporation as such. Shencypeter (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a good reminder that on english wikipedia we generally call a company what it calls itself in english rather than get involved in adjudicating what are at their heart irrational nationalistic conflicts. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A wonder : Chinese: 中華航空 means what, exactly translated into English? "China aviation"? or really "China airlines"? --Bouzinac (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Zhonghua and 中華 on Wiktionary. But the poor translation is not really relevant to what the corporation calls itself. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My wonder wasn't about China but 航空. I don't speak chinese but shouldn't it be "Chinese: 航空公司"  ? Bouzinac (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have an English Airline, now do we? There's even a disambiguation hat note in Air China. This thread should stop here, this is a discussion for Quora! Shencypeter (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Press release in Japanese about Osaka-JFK flight[edit]

http://www.kiac.co.jp/news/2010/1245/CIshuko.pdf WhisperToMe (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

747 Fleet Table figures[edit]

Hi,

In the total field for the 747 there are some figures like this

9 -> 0 0 -> 6 0 -> 3

Why is it like this? Can it be changed so it just displays with a single figure?

thanks

--Boeing747-412 (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing LCFs[edit]

Why did Boeing take two 747's and in return give 4 new 747s? That doesn't sound right. Why would Boeing want two old 747-400s when they could have 2 NEW ones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.27.56 (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. It's snowing here. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 11:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


– The recent decision was to relocate Republic of China to Taiwan because no one understands it. It's confusing. Most readers will assume from such titles that they are about China. To apply the same principle and for consistency, all these titles should also be changed. 202.64.189.90 (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC) 202.64.189.90 (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point —Tamfang (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all -- In each case the name is that actually used by the entity. However, the nom's objective might be achieved by adding the disambiguator "(Taiwan)" in most cases. This will presumably not be necessary for those items where China/Chinese is not part of the title: {China Airlines (Taiwan)]]; China Times (Taiwan), etc. It is not appropriate for WP to give companies or institutions names that they do not in fact use. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose see no reason to move correctly named article to a made up name, doesnt need disambiguation as it is the primary user of the term. Proposer rationale as flawed as the airline has never been called the Republic of China Airlines. Other unrelated move requests should be made on the appropriate pages not here. MilborneOne (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose That's the official name, why need to change? Asiaworldcity (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The proposed moves don't even exist as redirects, much less as WP:COMMONNAME. -Multivariable (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Many (I'm not sure about all because there are some I don't know about) of the items listed above are the actual names of the items. For example "China Airlines", although located in Taiwan (or Republic of China) is still "China Airlines". The airline should probably rename itself but the fact is it hasn't. If any item in the above list is arguable then it should be addressed individually rather than as part of a group. Readin (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we just close this discussion, as the move request is obviously not serious and solely disruptive? --RJFF (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Taiwan Post already exists as a redirect since the post office was known as such for months. Taiwan Airlines also exists as a redirect to help lay readers to locate the flag carrier. Better and clearer hatnotes may be needed for the other cases. Don't alter the titles. Jeremy (talk) 09:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:National Anthem of the Republic of China which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i talk two airlines .richard taiwan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.149.13.20 (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

your mad man you are not belong chines because your filipino i kill u etchetera his i kiss him — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.149.13.20 (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

his kiss me .etchetera .richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.149.13.20 (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

China Airlines Flight 8[edit]

Support article - I support the creation of a new article entitled China Airlines Flight 8, as this incident diverted an aircraft, was well published, and is a landmark case involving immigration law. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to explain a bit more as aircraft divert all the time for medical emergencies and is not a notable occurence, not sure what it has to do with immigration law? MilborneOne (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And hundreds of pregnant women get deported for immigration law violations. Any relevance for this flight would be linked to whether the baby was ruled a US citizen. That's nationality law, not immigration law. HkCaGu (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Booking for flights[edit]

I would like to book a flight from Honolulu to Manila from Jan 13 2016 to Feb 12 2016. Hope someone could help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.137.2.91 (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried the airlines website at http://www.china-airlines.com/ its normally the first place to try rather than an encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:China Airlines/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

24 images, 55 citations. Lacks refs. JJ98 (Talk) 04:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 04:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 11:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on China Airlines. 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, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paris[edit]

Hello, I read Currently, the carrier is still unable to offer flights to destinations such as Paris. What's the point preventing China Airlines from serving directly CDG ? --Bouzinac (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on China Airlines. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 13:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 03:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 06:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:China_Airlines&oldid=1206660795"