Talk:British Airways

GA Reassessment

British Airways

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

---

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

There are several "reliance on primary sources" orange banners that need to be addressed. There are uncited statements throughout the article, MOS:OVERSECTION concerns, and I think the "Incidents and accidents" section can be incorporated into the article's history or removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello; can you give me some more detail on some of these items. I'll try to make some improvements. Kyteto (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kyteto: The areas with primary source concerns have already been placed. That would be a good area to start. Z1720 (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Kyteto do you still intend to work on this article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I do, I've been a bit ill recently, it's why my normal article writing has fallen off in recent weeks - finally feeling better for the first time, but it is still not great. I am also having an issue with the primary source problem, in that in several instances they are extremely trivial bits of info, to the point where I'd suspect nobody but BA would ever care to mention them. I see a very strong case for third party sourcing of any claim that is, or remotely is, extraordinary, such as "British Airways was the most profitable airline in the world in the mid 1990s" (a true fact indeed) while a statement like "British Airways has a class of seating called [X]" is... mundane. Does it really need to even be cited at all? WP:Cite had never demanded absolutely everything to have a cite, technically only that which is challenged; so, can I resolved the primary source tag by simply removing them and leaving them uncited? What's the best course of action for the mundanes? Kyteto (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Kyteto, GA criterion 2b) requires that all content that could reasonably be challenged be cited inline. I think it fairly likely that travel websites would mention details of BA's seating classes or loyalty programs. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Google isn't always complying with that fairly likely... I am trying... Kyteto (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Can I have some specifics of the aspects not related to the areas with primary source concerns please? I have knocked most of those away. Kyteto (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kyteto: There are uncited statements throughout the article. These will need to be resolved before I can recommend a keep. Z1720 (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, all citation needed tags are resolved. Two were recently added in the lead for items that were already in the body (and cited there), while the other had the relevant cite already on its dedicated article that has been brought across. Are there areas that aren't tagged that are of concern? Kyteto (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

(not Z1720) Good work on this thus far, @Kyteto. There are still several unsourced bits, which I've tagged. There are also a few {{Primary source inline}} tags that should be resolved for this to be kept. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 00:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The repeated requested resolution of tags, even to the extent of vandalism, has now been implemented. Kyteto (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2026

I need to add a missing aeroplane on the list of fleet Daiawn24 (talk) 11:36, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello Daiawn24, as you noticed, this article is currently semi protected. Please add here the aircraft that is missing as well as the source confirming that information so we can add it to the article. Thanks --McSly (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Overly negative

Having just ready through this, particularly the customer relations sections seems highly negative and based off personal interests and not unbiased facts. ~2026-51804-13 (talk) 10:08, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, it definitely needs to be reviewed. DWContributor (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

British Airways A380 Refurbishments:

Before adding this to the page, I noticed that it mentions that "increasingly the firm has focused on its consumers in more expensive classes." Recently, B.A. has announced they will be refurbishing all 12 of their A380's from mid - 2026 to 2028, the capacity on each aircraft will be reduced from 469 seats to 421 seats, and the upper deck will consist of exclusively 110 Club Suites, with the upper deck economy cabin being removed entirely, and the number of economy class seats onboard each aircraft reduced to 215 from 303, a capacity cut of almost 1/3. Seems like a major development that maybe should be included somewhere throughout this page? Thanks. DWContributor (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

British Airways Is Cutting Airbus A380 Service On 7 Routes To Build The World's Largest Business-Class Cabin

Why Is British Airways Refitting Its Airbus A380 Cabins? DWContributor (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

simpleflying is a deprecated source WP:SIMPLEFLYING / WP:BADAIRSOURCE. Do you have any alternatives? Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I didn't know that SimpleFlying is considered to be a subpar source, thanks for the heads up. I don't really know if any of these websites are really considered any more reputable however. Apparently the exact seat changes, such as the 110 ClubSuites on the upper deck were accidentally leaked by B.A. through a seat map on their website, so this information wasn't meant to be public but it's been widely reported on:

https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/news/british-airways-airbus-a380-flight-cuts-cabin-overhaul/

https://www.headforpoints.com/2026/02/26/british-airways-a380-refurbishment-2/

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news/british-airways-leak-a380-upgrade-refit DWContributor (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

None of them look horrible. Take a look at WP:RSNP and also search the archives - there's a search box to do just that. 10mmsocket (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay thanks. DWContributor (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

At 20:00 today, B.A. officially confirmed the A380 premium - heavy cabin reconfiguration refurbishments taking place. They've also detailed what upgrades they've introduced across different cabin classes, I saw the announcement on the B.A. website this morning that there would be something significant published this evening and it happened to be related to the A380 refurbishments.

What's new | About BA | British Airways

A380 new era | About BA | British Airways DWContributor (talk) 19:12, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Impartiality Concerns:

I just wanted to share my opinion regarding the language used to describe B.A. throughout the article, such as in the Corporate Affairs - customer relations section where B.A. is described as having a "reputation for poor service" in the first line of the opening paragraph, is that a statement of fact or an opinion? Is there a general consensus on this page to describe B.A's operations as such? Re: possible "Neutral point of view" violation.

https://uk.style.yahoo.com/british-airways-officially-best-airline-104021908.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJczoupoDbR8hWhA4eRTSLSYzmSG6f8K9TCd-sMjONL261nWgsfxPEfkT_w4hLtv2b7rRE5hdH7eNDKVaQwWx3dEGyBfUJUgDSysJla5S2iF7cTmwY8sKnIVXCF4GI0p2G0IKoDMv9ehr3Tm1T2jmxvFzo1Om7LMc51IBh54oYiH

https://lux-mag.com/why-british-airways-is-still-one-of-the-best/

https://www.businessinsider.com/british-airways-is-the-best-airline-2018-6

DWContributor (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2026 (UTC)