Talk:NewLeaf

Edit requests

Lack of commercial agreements and/or airport deposits

There are further news about the company: here. It may be too insignificant for editing the article, though. Thoughts? Gabor Lukacs (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the link. In reading the ref this is strictly routine requirements for airlines to operate into airports, so probably not notable on it own. If they fail to sign contracts and make deposits than that would be notable, so it is worth keeping an eye on. - Ahunt (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Ahunt. I will keep posting information as things happen. There are other interesting developments (see below).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabor Lukacs (talk • contribs)

I see by this story that you have been busy this week. I am thinking that this is not worth adding at this point, but definitely would be if the court orders the bond requirement. - Ahunt (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I trust your judgment on that (no pun intended). Thank you for keeping an eye on things. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 09:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I am guessing you will be the first to know if the bond requirement is ordered or not by the court. I would say if it isn't then the item is not notable as that outcome won't affect the company, but if it is granted then it would be notable as the company start-of-service date will be delayed unless the bond is posted quickly. - Ahunt (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Today is "launch day" for the company. I don't see any news reports on the bond requirement. Did the court hear it? - Ahunt (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Ahunt, for the belated answer. I have been at two academic conferences, with very little time/sleep. So far, the motion for injunction is pending before the court. Cross examinations will be taking place in late August. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the update. Looks like bond request has been "overtaken by events" as the launch happened. - Ahunt (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Completed edit requests

Ongoing legal challenge

The March 30, 2016 decision of the Canadian Transportation Agency is currently being challenged in the Federal Court of Appeal. Reliable sources are:

• Winnipeg Free Press
• Federal Court of Appeal Docket
• Air Passenger Rights online archive

Although these facts are unlikely to be controversial, since I am a party to the ongoing litigation, it might be better if this information is added by an editor other than myself. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done - thank you for the update on the situation. - Ahunt (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Ahunt. There is a typo, though, in the date in the article. The Federal Court of Appeal proceeding was started on April 19, 2016, not on May 18, 2016. The court docket is in reverse chronology, so the first item is at the bottom: [1] Gabor Lukacs (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference to CTA decision

The date of the decision of the Canadian Transportation Agency is March 29, 2016, and not March 30. I propose that a link to the decision itself be added: [2] Gabor Lukacs (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Wrong terminology

• NewLeaf is not a ULCC (ultra-low cost carrier), but rather an ISP or IASP (indirect air service provider).

• "Virtual airline" is ambiguous and "indirect air service provider" is the correct terminology.

• The ruling of the Canadian Transportation Agency makes it clear that NewLeaf should not be representing itself to the public as an airline. As such , the phrase "airline" might be misleading too. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input here. We have to go with what reliable refs say. This ref calls them a ULCC, as cited. The Virtual airline (economics) article seems to include what this company is seeking to do, at least within Wikipedia article terminology. Since it is linked to that article it allows readers to read Virtual airline (economics) and this should not be ambiguous. The article actually doesn't called them "an airline", but uses the term Virtual airline (economics), which seems to be the best link for the business model. - Ahunt (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Paragraphs 47-55 of the CTA decision deal with NewLeaf. It noted that "The Agency notes, however, that if NewLeaf were to hold itself out to the public as an air carrier operating an air service, it would be required to hold a licence." Gabor Lukacs (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have to use the same terminology as the CTA, but I think in this case we are consistent there, in that we are linking to Virtual airline (economics) instead of airline. If we used indirect air service provider then that would probably be redirected to Virtual airline (economics) anyway as the best target article to explain the business model. - Ahunt (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia doesn't have to use the same terminology. My objection is to the term ULCC, which is different than a Virtual airline (economics). This comparison may be useful to show the differences: [3] Gabor Lukacs (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The main problem is that we have two refs 1 and 2 that specifically call them a ULCC. If we can find a ref that calls them something else, or refutes that designation, then we can show that there is disagreement about the issue. - Ahunt (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Both 1 and 2 are outdated (April 2015), and they refer to "NewLeaf Airways" and not to "NewLeaf Travel Company." Gabor Lukacs (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Do we have any new refs that show a different designation, though? Regardless of precise names, the company's proposed business model seems to be the same as then. - Ahunt (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

How about this? Canadian travel company NewLeaf rebranded as ‘reseller’ Gabor Lukacs (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Perfect. I have made the reference to ULCC a historical artifact and adding in new wording. - Ahunt (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Update Federal Court of Appeal litigation (leave to appeal granted)

On June 9, 2016, the Federal Court of Appeal agreed to review the decision of the Canadian Transportation Agency that NewLeaf can operate without a licence. In an unusual move, the court also provided detailed reasons for its order granting leave to appeal.

Gabor Lukacs (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and it is not going to record the blow by blow of your litigation. You have a personal website where you can record that if you like. Jytdog (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I have reviewed the refs cited above and, given the way that the story is unfolding, I think this ought to be added as in interim stage. I do think that once the case is settled and the outcome is known that this can probably all be summarized and cut down, but in the meantime adding this will inform readers where the case is within the legal process. - Ahunt (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree - that is what newspapers are for. We are an encyclopedia. Activists come here all the time and want to use WP as a vehicle but WP:SOAPBOX and as mentioned WP:NOTNEWS. Jytdog (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I have added the information and reorganized the page. I agree that people involved in subjects often do come here to Wikipedia to record, if not influence subjects. Here on WikiProject Aviation we deal with this very regularly, mostly manufacturers trying to promote products, but this situation has some differences. First this person has been really good about only posting edit requests here on the talk page, which I have taken on the job of reviewing. As you can see I have accepted some edit requests he has made and not others in an attempt to keep the article encyclopedic. I think the other factor in this particular case is, that while this story commenced as a virtual airline start-up story, it has quickly become centrally about the legal challenges. Now that the Federal Court of Appeal has said that they will hear the case, the outcome will form a legal precedent that will govern future plans to start other "virtual airlines". Depending how the case is decided, it could end up either nurturing or ending an entire business model. All that to say, that this story will have significant and lasting outcomes. - Ahunt (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The outcome could be important. The outcome. It could also be decided very narrowly such that it isn't generalizable. As to the larger issue, being involved in litigation is a COI in WP, and yes Gabor is doing what they should do -- as somebody who is claiming a high moral stance should definitely do even beyond what our guideline says. Jytdog (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we have hammered it out well and it looks good at this point. I expect that the future additions will be a court date and then a verdict. At that point it can probably be condensed further, as I agree that once the case is decided the outcome is the key thing. In the meantime what we have here will at least let readers know where the airline and the legal challenge are in the process. - Ahunt (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Ahunt. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Ambiguity as to the postponement and relaunch

Currently, the article creates the impression as if the postponement would last until the final resolution of the legal challenge. THowever, NewLeaf will be announcing its relaunch today, even though the legal challenge is still pending before the Federal Court of Appeal. (So far, only leave to appeal was granted.)

Once details of the relaunch become available, the article should be edited accordingly.

Gabor Lukacs (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, once we know what the company's intentions are, that should be added. Feel free to add a ref here on the talk page once that has been announced. - Ahunt (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like they have made that announcement! I'll add it to the article. - Ahunt (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Please wait until they actually start. It wouldn't surprise me if there is an injunction or something. Jytdog (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I have put it back in. The launch has been publicly announced along with more proposed destinations. We can't just ignore the company intentions. If there is an injunction then that should be added if and when it occurs. You can't leave the article in a state of inaccurancy on the basis that you think something might happen that hasn't been announced. If you want to argue WP:CRYSTAL then the whole subject is nothing more than that and I suggest the only option is to send the whole to thing to WP:AFD. - Ahunt (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Ahunt for the edits. There is one inaccuracy, though. As far as I understand, they intend to have their first flight take off on July 25, 2016. They began sales immediately (today). Gabor Lukacs (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Again you are violating WP:CRYSTALBALL. In this case you are playing both WP:PROMO for the airline and letting an advocate drive Wikipedia to act like a newspaper. We are not a goddamn newspaper; our mission is to transmit accepted knowledge not predict the future. The article would survive an AfD but that doesn't mean that we add things every time a company just says it is going to fart. Not communicating what a company says it is going to do, is not being inaccurate; it is being an encyclopediia. WP:CRYSTALBALL is policy. Not an essay. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, I think you are misunderstanding the issue. I was referring to the statement that "they would commence ticket sales on July 25, 2016" -- which is inaccurate, as they have already began (today) to sell tickets. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I was addressing the editor who added the content to the article. If there is a reliable source that says they started selling today, that is at least a fact and not a prediction. Jytdog (talk) 21:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is a source: here Gabor Lukacs (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see where that ref says they are selling tickets now. Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

It appears that you have missed the title: "selling discount airfares again" Gabor Lukacs (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The CBC article ref has now been updated. It says the company is selling tickets now for flights commencing 25 July. I'll update the article.

User:Jytdog, I also suggest you read WP:AGF, before you accuse me of promoting the business that is the subject of the article. You might also want to be familiar with WP:CIVIL, too. I have actually been on Wikipedia more than ten years, done more than 120,000 edits and started almost 2,000 new articles. If you check the page history you will see that I have accepted some of User:Gabor Lukacs' suggestions and not others. There is nothing promotional in the article. If there was I would remove it. - Ahunt (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The CBC source is good - it does say they are selling now. OK, that is a major milestone for them. my objection is withdrawn. Jytdog (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits Ahunt. Please working with you as always. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Cancellation of Fort St. John routes

The company cancelled its flights to/from Fort St. John (source: here). I suggest that the article be revised accordingly. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Just checking the source you cited, it says "New discount airline NewLeaf will fly out of Fort St. John to two destinations, Abbotsford and Edmonton." Is that the right article? - Ahunt (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, here is the correct one. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Ahunt. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Lawsuit against NewLeaf by unpaid vendor

"Marketing consultant Hessie Jones, who told Global News NewLeaf owes her $76,000, is now suing the travel company and its president, Jim Young." Source: here. Other parts of the article, containing an expert's opinion about NewLeaf's viability, may also be interesting. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that is quite a bit of value there, including facts about the lawsuit and Kelowna, plus the expert opinions of a management analyst. I have added some text and the ref. - Ahunt (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Ahunt. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Does NewLeaf have any hubs?

I was wondering about the edits by Cjstepney. While I was able to find sources talking about NewLeaf's plans to turn some of the cities listed into hubs, I have not been able to find firm statements that it is happening currently. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 09:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The ref for this seems to be this one, which says "NewLeaf (Winnipeg Int'l) says it will establish bases in Kelowna and Hamilton, ON to supplement its Winnipeg Int'l hub operations". So it seems that Winnipeg is a "hub" and the others are "bases". I'll fix the article. - Ahunt (talk) 10:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

NewLeaf technically has bases or focus cities, not hubs. Hubs are where many or most passengers are connecting flights. However as a low-cost carrier NewLeaf likely focuses more on point-to-point traffic and avoids the cost of facilitating connecting passengers. - ✈Sunnya343✈ (talk) 11:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Technically as a ticket seller it doesn't have focus cities in the meaning of the linked articles and has been said as it doesn't operate anything cant have hubs or bases either. MilborneOne (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

I have changed the infobox to a company one as is normal for these travel agents mainly beacuse they are not an airline, I have been reverted but as the company infobox is standard for non-airline travel companies I have changed it again, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: It appears most other virtual airline articles (see list here) use the Infobox airline. They exhibit many qualities of traditional airlines - bases, destinations, dedicated fleet etc - that cannot be listed in simple Infobox company. For information that does not belong to NewLeaf but to Flair Airlines, e.g. IATA/ICAO codes, a note can be added. - ✈Sunnya343✈ (talk) 11:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I think good arguments can be made either way, since the company is a company and also sorta an airline. I think the deciding issue should be which box is most informative for the readers. - Ahunt (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Definitely Infobox airline, which allows bases, fleet etc. to be listed. I will go ahead and revert back to this infobox. - ✈Sunnya343✈ (talk) 11:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit-warring with an admin is never a good idea. I would suggest we create a consensus here before you make any changes to the page again. - Ahunt (talk) 11:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Using an airline infobox can be seen as misleading the reader as the company is not licenced as an airline, it doesn't have a fleet or hubs or really destinations it just sells tickets. If we use the airline infobox on other virtual airlines then we need to look at changing them as well. Using the airline infobox also encourages entering misleading information, the company doesn't have an IATA or ICAO code or even a Callsign, it doesn't have an operating base in the airline sense as it has no aircraft. Wikipedia is not the place to mislead the reader into believing it is a real airline. Also note that some of the airlines listed in the virtual airline article are actually just branding are marketing excercises and not the same as the NewLeaf operation which is just a ticket selling operation pretending to be an airline. MilborneOne (talk) 11:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Then how else do we list NewLeaf's destinations and operating bases? Infobox company doesn't allow a lot of information to be listed. I understand that NewLeaf is not an airline itself, but it has many features of one that cannot be included under Infobox company. - ✈Sunnya343✈ (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

If they are not in the standard company they are probably not notable, the operating base is really the same as its headquarters and we don't list destinations in the infobox for airlines either. We can detail the routes it sells tickets on in the destinations section. What do you think is missing that is notable to the company? MilborneOne (talk) 13:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Insignificant info

@Ahunt: Every low-cost carrier has high extra fares for baggage etc, that's virtually the definition of an LCC. That too, the CBC article does not state these are the "highest fares in the airline industry". It is just noted that the fares are high by a single analyst in a few short paragraphs of the CBC article. This is similar to the news articles on WestJet's charging for meals on its long-haul flights to Europe and the "backlash" it has faced. Guess what, that's what all low-cost carriers do. See IndiGo, AirAsia, Norwegian etc. The Canadian media appears to be more sensitive to these things given ULCCs are a new phenomenon in the country.

Regarding NewLeaf not starting flights to Fort St. John, this happens from time to time - when an airline does not launch flights to a planned destination. Northwest didn't launch its planned Seattle–Amsterdam–Bangalore flights, Delta didn't launch its planned Nairobi service, etc. These outcomes are not mentioned in their respective articles. In the grand scheme of things, it's insignificant when NewLeaf is flying to many other destinations. Overall, the History section of this article seems to be growing into a timeline and that will have to be fixed. - ✈Sunnya343✈ (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe that a new start up airline dropping announced destinations prior to their first flight is significant. I also think it is significant that CBC News noted their very high baggage fee structure. The CBC article quotes aviation consultant Rick Erickson as noting that NewLeaf is introducing high fees "out of the gate". Given earlier media concerns about the financial viability of the company, this all starts to create a picture of the circumstances around this start up. It may not turn out to be significant looking back in a year or two, but most airline start-ups in Canada fail, usually quite quickly and if that turns out to be the case here then these items will turn out to have been key markers in that story. Let's see whether other editors agree these should be retained or not. - Ahunt (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Protected

Because of persistent vandalism and removal of sourced material, I have protected this article from editing by new and unregistered editors. Ground Zero | t 01:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)