This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lists This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Aviation: Airlines 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 not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. This article is supported by the airline project.

Some thoughts on the formatting and organization of this article:

• Do we need to have separate sections for holding companies with single and multiple airline holdings? It seems to me like this distinction is pretty pointless as it is immediately obvious which companies have more than one airline holding.
• Bold needs to go away, even if it were consistently used it's still not necessary.
• While there is a certain visual appeal to the way this list is formatted, I think we'd be better off in the long run if we stuck to normal wiki bullets rather than having the horizontal rows separated by • for the list of airlines. Something like this:
  • British Airways, plc.
    • Majority holdings
      • BA CityFlyer
      • British Airways
      • OpenSkies
    • Minority holdings
      • Comair
      • Iberia Airlines
      • Sun Air of Scandinavia
• Obviously, for companies with out the majority/minority distinction, we'd skip that level. But do we need it at all (I'd say yes), and do we need to separate majority holdings from wholly owned? Are they the same thing?
• Dump the IATA codes. WP:AIRLINES has already decided against listing them in navboxes in a previous discussion.
• Do we want to list percentages (presumably showing how much of the airline is held by the holding company)? This seems like a bit too much detail for a list, and ought to be present for each listing if we're going to have them.
• I assume the inclusion of the now-deleted template at the top of the page is temporary until all the information is transferred into the article? It needs to go eventually as it's redundant.
• I plan to put ((Airline holding companies of the United States)) up for deletion as well once all of that content is included in this article. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do we really need these most are just parent companies and not what would be considered a holding company, I suspect that a fair majority of other thousands of airlines not listed also have a parent company. MilborneOne (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After spending time cleaning up the article to remove uneeded graphics and information it is a retrograde step to add all the rubbish back in. We dont need graphics to tell us where continents are, we dont need logos for airlines, I had also reverted to more standard presentation. I had also removed information not related to holding companies, such as governments and removed single airline parent companies as a large percentage of airlines have parent companies all of which can be found on the individual airline pages. Perhaps IP contributers can help improve the list rather than just revert attempts to improve the article. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"A company in which the holding company owns more than 50% voting shares or a "majority of share ownership" is known as a subsidiary"

Shouldn't it be "A company of which...." It sounds like the subsidiary is the one that owns more than 50%.

Shouldn't it be "A company of which...." It sounds like the subsidiary is the one that owns more than 50%.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of airline holding companies. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20090117200642/http://www.dot.gov/affairs/1999/oig2599.htm to http://www.dot.gov/affairs/1999/oig2599.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090624051321/http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?ID=24951 to http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?ID=24951

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) 10:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]