Talk:Trinity Airways

Orphaned references in T'way

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of T'way's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "FI":

• From Asiana Airlines: "Directory: World Airlines". Flight International. 2007-03-27. p. 78.
• From Korean Air: "Directory: World Airlines". Flight International. 2007-04-03. p. 102.
• From Hansung Airlines: "Directory: World Airlines". Flight International. 2007-04-03. p. 89.
• From Jeju Air: "Directory: World Airlines". Flight International. 2007-04-03. p. 97.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Content very similar to Hansung Airlines

Right now this page is almost identical to Hansung Airlines. The lead, the first 3 paragraph in the history section, the references and the navboxes. If T'way really is Hansung, then I think this page should be redirected there with the appropriate text added. If T'way isn't Hansung, then this page needs to be rewritten. ClamDip (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Fleet count

There are discrepancies in the fleet count of 737-800s among the cited sources. This is an attempt to reconcile them:

• T'way says it has 21.
  • One of those – HL8232/ICAO:71C232/sn27979 – appears to be scrapped per .
  • Based on data from FlightAware and PS:
    • T'way has at least three additional former Ryanair 737-800s (now HL8323, HL8324, and HL8326) that have been in routine use, transferred in October/November 2018.
    • They also have a former flydubai 737-800 (ex-A6-FDK/ICAO:8962b6, now HL8327/ICAO:71C327/sn40238) in routine use, transferred in November 2018.
    • One more flydubai 737-800 (ex-A6-FDL/ICAO:8962b7, now HL8329/ICAO:71c329/sn40239) is apparently being transferred to T'way. According to FA, it just (2019-01-12) flew EINN–UBBB–RKSS as flight TWB326D () just as its sibling, HL8327, did in November.
  • This yields a count of 25 (21 - 1 + 3 + 1 + 1) as confirmation of the PS database. The T'way source appears to be based on the fleet as of about December 2017, except that it does not reflect the withdrawal from service of HL8232 in October 2017.
• Yonhap (2017-12-07) says 19, which is consistent with the PS count as of December 2017.
• Blue Swan Daily (2018-08-23) says 20, which is consistent with the PS count as of April–August 2018.

Based on the above, a count of 25 as of 2019-01-13 seems justified by the sources. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Rebranding

@Yuezhi Huang do you have any sources for the rebranding? You’ve moved the page, changed every mention of the name, and removed a source detailing the parent company, yet there isn’t one single source about the rebranding in the article. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:08, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

More unsourced content being added

Multiple people have repeatedly changed the calling without once citing a source. When are we going to actually provide a reliable source? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:50, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Its being reported in many reliable sources, including:

• Flight Global
• Korea Times
• Maeil Broadcasting Network
• Aerospace Global News
• The Straits Times
• Australian Associated Press

This selection shows a pretty broad spread across many industry sources as well as mainstream news outlets across the Asia-Pacific over a period of a month. I dont think its a particularly contentious claim at this point.

Notwithstanding, those who want to add content referring to Trintiy Airways should support their edits with any of the sources above or the many others available per WP:V. Dfadden (talk) 03:19, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I do believe Danners is referring to the callsign change specifically, which I haven't been able to find a source for outside of planespotters.net Cubnorth (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

That would be completely correct... There's no doubt in anyone's mind that the airline has rebranded (even with my opposition to the move below, which is for policy reasons not factual reasons), but there very much is doubt as to the callsign - I can't find a single reliable source for it. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:18, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. It wasn't clear that Multiple people have repeatedly changed the calling without once citing a source was referring to the callsign and not what the airline was called.

As an aside, are either of you aware of any discussion or consensus around the use of LiveATC as a confirmatory source for callsigns? Callsigns don't change often, and live recordings and (archived ones) from an airline's hub would be a pretty reliable way to confirm what callsign is in use. Dfadden (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

I've not known of any discussions about it. In this case however I would lean towards no as there's no explicit confirmation that it's the correct airline. If it was a more obvious callsign like KOREANAIR then maybe, but SONOROUS could technically be anything. Cubnorth (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I take your point. It would be difficult to confirm this without cross referencing another source like flightradar24, which would be WP:SYNTH. So a non-starter... However FlightAware does link ADSB data and provide the callsign specific to both the airline and individual flights. It may be an acceptable source for this particular use case. @Danners430 what do you think?

In any case, Flightaware still shows flights operating under the TEEWAY callsign, so even if we did agree this is a valid source, it doeant support changing the callsign yet! Dfadden (talk) 06:40, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but where does the data come from? IIRC it's user contributed…! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 06:55, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be - see Navigation Service Providers. Looks like it aggregates government Air Navigation Service Providers, commercial iridium satellite data, VHF relays, although there may be some user submitted ADSB ground receiver data. It doesnt specifically state where it pulls the callsign info from, but i would imagine that would be sourced from the interface with Airline Flight information systems, since in most countries at least, flight plans are filed using callsign and flight number as the identifier for Regular Public Transport services. There would be no need for this component to be user-submitted. Dfadden (talk) 07:19, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@RPC7778 has now located a source for the callsign change and added it under the history section. It is in Korean, from a large financial publication, but the translation does indeed confirm the change! . Dfadden (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

It's been changed to reflect the holding company: Sono Trinity Group. ~2026-49889-39 (talk) 05:12, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Trinity Airways logo

When are you going to set the Trinity Airways logo, T'way Air is officially now Trinity Airways AlextheBCOLboy (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Once a vectorised version is available Cubnorth (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 12 September 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Reywas92^Talk 16:30, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

---

T'way Air → Trinity Airways – The rebranding has officially taken place which is reliably sourced. In my opinion this needs to be moved ASAP as the name is now outdated but I see a move has been reverted hence the request. Cubnorth (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Support Ryanaviator (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - once again, we have a move request without a single piece of evidence that the new name is the WP:COMMONNAME. WP:NCCORP is clear - Whenever possible, the most common usage in independent, reliable, secondary sources should be used - where's the evidence that Trinity Airways is the most common name? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:16, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Please look at the edit I made under the "Rebranding to Trinity Airways" where the article says on 10 September 2026, which is a few days ago, has rebranded to Trinity Airways from T'way Air. The airline itself has announced this already through their main page, Instagram, and other social media apps.

https://m.trinityairways.com/app/main

Recently, OMAAT also posted this article of their new seats:

https://onemileatatime.com/news/trinity-airways-business-class/

A Korean newspaper has also said this:

https://www.koreajoongangdaily.com/business/tway-air-becomes-trinity-airways-with-a-service-model-to-match/12811897

Ryanaviator (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

That's not at all what WP:COMMONNAME is about - of course there's going to be media coverage of the rebranding itself - what's required are reliable sources which aren't about the rebranding to be routinely using the new name. For example, news of a route launch, or a news article where the airline happens to be mentioned in passing. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:22, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Does the OMAAT suffice this? "T'way Air recently rebranded as Trinity Airways" Ryanaviator (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that's the sort of source that's needed... although that's the only one I could find on Google. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:42, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

All the examples given on WP:NCCORP refer to common names in conjunction with full legal names (ie Trinity Airways instead of Trinity Airways Co., Ltd). There's nothing on it about how rebrands should be handled, and it doesn't make logical sense to me to apply it in this way. The rebrand is objective fact and is reliably sourced, the previous name is no longer the name of the company. All this is doing is prolonging a move for no real reason. Cubnorth (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Support. WP:NAMECHANGES tells us common sense can be applied – if the subject of an article has a name change, it is reasonable to consider the usage following the change in reliable, English-language sources. A quick search of both T'way Air and Trinity Airways on Google news both yield search results that acknowledge of this name change by a wide variety of independent, reliable, english language sources. This includes recent reporting in The Straits Times , Travel Weekly and FlightGlobal , as well as Korean-based English language media , Considering this against the WP:CRITERIA that would be impacted by this change, it is reasonable that Trinity Airways would be readily recognised by someone familiar with the subject area and would be a natural search term when looking for information on the subject. Although Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, this rebranding includes repainting all aircraft, check in counters, booking engines and corporate identity. Applying common sense - Its a relatively small LCC that is expanding and does not have strong brand recognition outside of its home market, and there is nothing in any reporting that suggests this is a controversial change. It is difficult to see a world where international media, who have already acknowledged the change (and customers) will routinely refer to this airline as "T'way" in the future. I agree with Cubnorth that the examples provided at WP:NCCORP are not applicable in this case. Historically, there is precedent that such moves are uncontroversal as long as they happen after the name change takes effect (see here, here and here). Dfadden (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Support, for same reasons Dfadden said above. VenFlyer98 (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Support per Cubnorth and Dfadden. Also, I don't think articles about airlines that rebrand or change their names really need move requests. It might just be me, but almost every article I have encountered about airlines in a similar situation, such as Trinity, has been moved (not request) with no objections. RPC7778 (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think they need move requests either but I saw it had been reverted before and would likely be reverted again if I tried. So here we are. Cubnorth (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Support per Dfadden and Cubnorth - I don't believe this to be a controversial move. WP:COMMONSENSE matters! Limmidy (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Support because "T'way" doesnt exist anymore Seungchannx (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Support and fully endorse Dfadden's arguments on WP:NAMECHANGES and WP:COMMONSENSE. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 11:47, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Support per nom, I'm not a stickler for WP:COMMONNAME when it comes to the official preference of people or companies. Countries perhaps I'm a bit more hesitant on grapesurgeon (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2026 (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.