Importance rating

Despite this article being about a UPS subsidiary (and UPS being of high-importance to Louisville), I'm electing to make this article of low importance because of UPS Air's minimal impact on Louisville and other areas. --Carl (talk|contribs) 17:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a clarification, if the original rating explanation was not clear enough (and I'm now sure how it isn't), this article is about the actual air service, not the company. Personally, this article needs to be merged into the main UPS article, as there is not so much information in this article that it would be unwieldy for the main UPS article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Braindrain0000 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC-8)

The image File:UPS logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

747-400F orders

How is it that this article says that UPS has orders for four more 747-400F aircraft? Boeing has stopped producing 747-400F; the last one, as shown [1], left the factory in April 2009. Are these orders for used aircraft? Also, shortly after the table, it says that 747-400F orders were to be delivered starting in June 2007 and to go on through 2008. Should all of this be fixed up? C628 (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPS says they have four orders on their website...These must be used orders from other airlines. Example: FedEx Express has orders for 757s but Boeing stopped producing the 757 a few years ago.Spikydan1 (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furlough

Doesnt appear to be particularly notable just a way the company is dealing with a downturn, I presume that is the case because it doesnt really explain. Appears to be written like a union press release, do we need to just remove it? MilborneOne (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that by itself, it certainly isn't very notable. It most likely was added as a section because that was the only way to integrate it into the article (it doesn't have anything to do with destinations, the fleet, or incidents). If there was a section with content relating to UPS Airlines and its history, perhaps this section could be deleted and added there in a brief sentence or two. As such, there is no means of doing so. -SteveCof00 (talk) 09:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crash Date

Does anyone else think that this is odd that a major crash happened exactly three years before 9/11? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillies9513 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean ? Three years is an odd number of years ? --80.185.70.238 (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge (2013) with UPS Airlines Flight 1354

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Not notable, fails WP:NOTNEWS & WP:NEVENT should be merged / redirected here. LGA talkedits 08:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. A crash of a large airliner is notable, and other crashes of civil cargo aircraft have articles dedicated to them; c.f. National Airlines Flight 102 and FedEx_Express_Flight_80. —Bpogi (talk) 02:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is no reason to keep it, without the demonstrated lasting effect it is only worthy of a mention. LGA talkedits 11:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was speaking to the "reinforced by established practice" portion of WP:NEVENT. While this may be a case of "recentism," with the investigation barely having started, it's hard to say yet whether there is a lasting effect as required by that guideline, but as it notes: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." —Bpogi (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

disagree - Enough content to keep a separate article. If you merge it in it will add a fair length to the already longish UPS article. Very similar to other airline articles. --JetBlast (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does not address the issue with the issue of UPS Airlines Flight 1354 not meeting WP:NOTNEWS; a redirect here is better than outright deletion at WP:AFD. LGA talkedits 21:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

disagree As for what Bpogi was saying, the investigation has just started so we do not know if it will have a lasting effect, as well it is very similar to other articles, so no need to delete it. And as for not being not notable it is, because it temporarily shut down airport, there were loss of lives, and it was a hull loss. —Martinillo (talk) 02:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been nominated for deletion here. — Lfdder (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on UPS 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: 5 June 2024).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 May 2022

– I can't find any sources referring to this airline as "UPS Airlines". Over here, neither the media:[2], [3], [4] nor official sources: [5], [6], [7] are referring to this airline as "UPS Airlines". It seems that UPS (United Parcel Service) is not only the common name, but also the official name of the airline. Should be moved per WP:COMMONNAME. Idmsdmsalescaleneiviq (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 09:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RecycledPixels: Even then, the WP:COMMONNAME is still UPS not UPS Airlines, even in official sources seen above. And there is a dedicatedwebsite for the airline mentioning it as "UPS Air Cargo": [10]. And also, Natural Disambiguation still does not quite take a higher level of authority than COMMONNAME does. See this:[11] Idmsdmsalescaleneiviq (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Categories