Talk:Jat Airways

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Misinformation[edit]

It is very nice to see that someone takes care to update the "Jat Airways" article the moment some news about the company pop up. However ,we should keep in mind that many of them turn out to be incorrect in the end and the latest example is this new addition about the merger of Jat and Montenegro airlines.If you visit b92.net (transport section) page you will understand what I mean. I would suggest restraint(at least for a couple of days) as this "mess" wont do any good to potential tourists or anyone interested to know more about Serbia. thanks..

JAT won't be flying to Croatia, especially not to Dubrovnik.

Croatia hasn't got Open Sky Agreement with Serbia.

Luka, ensure that data posted in this article is accurate, after all it is your article, make sure it is accurate and informative and up to the Wiki standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.148.143 (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Just to update a bit on this, JAT won't be flying to Croatia after all, until Serbia and Croatia agree on Open Skies Agreement, for that to happened Serbia has to agree to pay 50 million Euros in damages Serb Air Force inflicted on Croatian civil Airports, for JAT to be allowed to fly to Croatia, JAT has to pay additional 20 million U$ it owes to Croatian Airports. Only after these terms have been met JAT will be allowed to fly to Croatia.

Anyways, statement released to the press by Croatian Ministry for Transport.

Uvođenje redovitih letova srbijanskoga zračnog prijevoznika JAT Airwaysa prema Puli pričekat će do sklapanja sporazuma o zračnom prometu, pripoćeno je iz Ministarstva mora, turizma, prometa i razvitka.

Suglasnost za letenje isključivo može dati Ministarstvo. Odlukom Vlade ono je jedini ovlašteni regulator odvijanja zračnog prometa u Hrvatskoj. JAT Airways još nije poslao Ministarstvu zahtjev za njezino izdavanje.

Za izdavanje suglasnosti potrebno je prethodno sklopiti dvostrani međudržavni Sporazum o zračnom prometu koji između Hrvatske i Srbije nije sklopljen, piše u priopćenju. U posljednjih sedam godina tri je puta službeno, diplomatskim putem, ali i više puta neslužbeno, inicirano sklapanje sporazuma kod nadležnih zrakoplovnih vlasti u Srbiji, ali ona na niti jedan dopis nije službeno odgovorila.

Iz Ministarstva su naglasili da Hrvatska nema ništa protiv uspostave redovitih zračnih linija između dvije države, ali uz prethodno zadovoljavanje navedenih preduvjeta.


JAT flying to Sofia
I don't think JAT is flying to Sofia (SOF/LBSF)! Who put this information on the front page?--Делян (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Tankyou for putting up a tag to protect this article as some trolls have constntly tried to vandalise this article because of personal beleifs.

Revision of 23:51, 16 November 2006[edit]

I assume the changes were made in good faith. In addition, I would love to see these edits in the article, however:

1) The language was appaling, not at all encyclopaedia style. Not a reason for revert, but editors should keep that in mind when doing another edit; 2) Jat's CEO is Nebojša Starčević, and not Zoran Starcevic. Wikipedia's policy is to use diacritics, but also proprer names. Again, not a reason for revert, but if a guy's name is on top of the page in the infobox, at least one can do is copy and paste; 3) Edit #1, inclusion of "Zoran Starcevic claims that the Serbian coat of arms livery is currently preferable". This needs to have a source, or at least a reasoning to some degree. Prior edit shows that there is a dilema, but this kind of specific information has to be supported by some hard evidence. 4) Edit #2, inclusion of "In a speech from CEO Zoran Starcevic on November 8, 2006, Jat's economy class is to be renovated for 2007. Changes could include the replacement of all seats, and the new seats will be colored red, blue, and white for the colors of the Serbian flag." - again, we need to have a source. Where was this speech given, 5) Edit #3, inclusion of "In 2007, Zoran Starcevic mentioned that Jat's business class will be rennovated in 2007. In 2007, Business classes on some of Jat's 737s will have new television screens on each seatback." - now, this is simply impossible, since he couldn't have mentioned this in 2007, as it didn't happen yet. Apart from that, a source is missing again.

Now, I could also argue that this is nothing but wishful thinking on behalf of Nebojša Starčević, and I could argue that it is highly unlikely that any airline would have their seats in white colour, as they would be incredibly hard to keep clean and white - but encyclopaedia is not a place for discussion, talk page is. That is why I will not oppose these edits, but they really need to fit into style of the article, and need to be supported. Unless the editor provides the sources, I don't think we'll have another option, but to revert. Other people could take care of style, but it would be nice if the person who actually made the edits could take care of that as well. Regards, Meelosh 01:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]


I was the one who wrote Starcevic's name wrong. Sorry for that incredibly stupid mistake, I always get confused with some Serbian names since I live in America. However, the speech Starcevic made on November 8th about renovating Jat's interior was all true, it was reported on news on TV (that's what LukaP said on airwise forums). By the way luka I am Jatroxoursox from Airwise, just letting you know. Sorry for the trouble I made. Zastavafan76

I certainly believe that the speech was true, but Jat would make Oneworld and Star Alliance look like amateurs if all statements and plans of mr Starčević, or any other Jat official for that matter, were included in the article. Personally, I would love to see all these promises in one place, just so I can quote something for the news, and it seemes that it would take a separate article to accomodate those :) But in order to have that, we need precise citations - so, again, I believe that everything here was in fact stated by mr Starčević, and unfortunately, much more... If you do have a link, please post it here. Thanks and best regards, Meelosh 11:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]


No problem. But, I have yet another question. According to some rumors from airliners.net and other websites, people have been reporting that on Serbian news channel Beta that Jat and Air India might merge. It totally came out the blue, and I'm not sure if I believe it myself. So far, no major news site or media has confirmed this up to my knowledge. Could you or anyone here confirm this is real? Don't worry this time I won't be making any edits unless that it is confirmed info (unlike what I accidentaly did last time). Odd stuff, eh? Zastavafan76 20:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a merger. Jat airways issued a press release stating that Air India and Jat Airways are forming a joint venture, but it did not specify what is that new company supposed to do, when is it due to start its business, neither the future shares in the company. A wait and see, yet again. Meelosh 22:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]


Wow cool it's not fake! Would it be ok if I wrote about this on Jat Airways and Air India articles? Zastavafan76 23:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to ask for a permission, just make sure you cite your sources on something like that. I've managed to find a short article on the subject in Serbian at B92. Regards, Meelosh 23:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]


Edit[edit]

I agree with the above comment and I have changed edits by a last member. The grammar and some information is simply not correct. LukaP

Controversy[edit]

The article does not mention the controversy over the Serbian acquisition of all the aircrafts. I mean Serbia takes all 10 Boeing 737s. Croatia, BiH, Slovenia do not get any. This has to be mentioned since it is mentioned for the Slovakian and Czech incident over CZECH AIRLINES formerly Czechoslovakian airlines. It is the truth and needs to be included. Thanks, Vseferović 23:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. However, if I recall correctly, Croatia did get couple of planes which were grounded in Graz and Villach, and Slovenia didn't claim any, as they had their own national airline, Adria Airways. There was also an issue of Zagal, which was later to become Croatia Airlines. In addition, Jat didn't have assets/planes only, there was a huge debt of cca USD 600 million, which became exclusively Serbian country debt and is being serviced by Serbian tax payers. As there haven't been any further claims to ownership of Jat Airways (including both, assets and debt), I believe this issue has been settled. It is also worth noting that value of Jat's fleet at the time was considerably smaller than its debt to foreign and domestic creditors. If you do have hard facts on the case, please post it here, or in the article! Best regards, Meelosh 17:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
By the way, I have tried to find something on Czech Airlines controversy you mentioned, but failed. Could you provide a link? Meelosh 17:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I think that someone would need to update the fleet version. It says that it is of November 2006. Someone should change it to January 2007. And could anyone also add that their last McDonnel Douglas DC-9 is on lease in the UAE. Thanks 

          - JATMAN

JAT Accidents and Incidents[edit]

Ive added info to the list of accidents and incidents. All information is available on the following site: http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/search_keyword.cgi?search=JAT

If there is any mistake and there is reference to prove so, please change. Thanks. Regards: JU580 11:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

I would like to know WHO has a problem with the 21.12.2009 incident and who keeps deleting it constantly and why. Is it someone from Jat's management? That is a well documented incident and the input is well written so you should try to improve it at best and not deleting it.

Niš Airport and its secondary hub status[edit]

Niš is still receiving flights from JAT and is therefore a secondary hub. Like scheduled, the destinations offered remain as Belgrade-Nikola Tesla, Stuttgart, Vienna and Zurich. Just because a flight is regularly cancelled to 1 of the listed destinations (Vienna in particular), it doesnt mean that they all are cancelled. A quick check on the JAT website, www.jat.com, would confirm the Niš flights. Thank you JU580 13:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are actually saying that there is a scheduled flight from Belgrade to Niš? I think that check-in takes more time than a drive to Niš. As for Stuttgart/Vienna flights, we had a chance to see how's that organized - Jat sells tickets from Niš, then sends a bus which drives 5-10 passangers to Belgrade Tesla, and they board the plane there. Bear in mind that Niš has in fact only one functioning destination - Zurich. You might say that Zurich is in fact the secondary hub, not Niš. If anything, it receives five times more Jat's flights than Niš, doesn't it? Meelosh 13:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, JATs website schedules make no reference to buses. They do refer to busses for Hannover, and if it was the same for Niš i am sure they would have added that detail in too. As for the distance between Beograd and Niš, i agree it is small and pointless, but JAT's base is in Beograd not Niš, so to start flights from Niš they have to come from Beograd. Regards JU580 07:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft[edit]

Will Jat Airways continue to pay for the airbus's, change the order or just cancel the whole thing? Also on the Jat Airways website it says that Jat has an extra 2 Boeing 737-400 and on this website it only says that they have 10 Boeing 737-300 and 4 ATR 72-202 and an extra 1 on its way! Someone should fix this up.

The B737-400's were only leased and the leasing of the aircraft has ended so they are not in the fleet anymore. The JAT website has been known to be unreliable in the past and the new site is no exception. The fleet page has shown that since its creation which was incorrect as it has only benn this summer that JAT have had their 10 Boeing 737-300's flying in their fleet actively. I havent seen the part where there is another aircraft on the way, but apparently yesterday morning (June 19th 2007) arrived 1 more ATR-72 from Finnair. regards JU580 17:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But what about the 8 Airbus 219 Jat orderd? What is happening to them? Becuase on the Serbian page of Jat Airways it says that they are still getting the 8 Airbus's or is that just old infomation and they canceled the order?
The order still stays but Jat is not going to get the aircrafts as they don’t want them. The order was just to in hance the image of the political party on power at the time. Jat is waiting to be privatised so the new owner gets rid of the deal. The deal is a robbery anyway since the price was inflated greatly by Airbus during 98 (the year they also boycotted Yugoslavia as a country!) but still agreed to sell 8 aircrafts at this ridiculous price.
The Aviogenex Boeing 737-200Adv (YU-ANP) JAT leased earlier this year has left the fleet according to the JAT website. It was shown in the fleet details page during the summer and now seems to have been removed. I assume it has left for another winter to Sudan Airways, but that is yet to be confirmed, but what JAT website confirms is that the aircraft is no longer with JAT. The full fleet as at December 2007 is 10 B737-300, 5 ATR-72 and 1 B737-400. JU580 18:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet[edit]

I have removed references to two B737-800 Jat Airways is allegedly about to lease. There is no official information on this, no reference on the Jat website, only speculation on an airline blog. Until there is some official confirmation that the airline has leased the aircraft, or taht the aircraft are on their way, there is no need to reference them a a part of the fleet. 11:09, 27 April 2012 (EST)

Suspension[edit]

My addition of Jat Airways suspension of flights has been removed by LukaP with the edit summary Completely false - flights were suspended on september 30, 2009 and its only a strike. Hardly deserves to be found here. The source clearly states that Jat Airways have suspended flights because their maintenance company refuses to do any more work owing to unpaid bills.

What is the consensus re the reversion of the edit referred to above? Mjroots (talk) 09:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that I can see wrong with your edit is the phrase "On that day", which implies it was the same day and date as the item in the previous paragraph, i.e. 30 September 2008, when it actually happened on 30 September 2009. Change that to "(Exactly) one year later", or something similar and I think it does deserve to be included, at least for now. If it only lasts a few days then it might be worth moving it to a different, slightly less prominent, section of the article. However, if it is a long-lasting dispute then it will likely deserve more prominence than it has. However we cannot know that yet and apart from that minor date issue, I'd say you got it right for now. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I removed it is because it’s simply a strike which happens in every single airline. I don't remember finding a section at Singapore Airlines when they went on strike or on Jet Airways or any other airline. The strike will end today. I hardly think that a 3 day strike deserves a mention here especially since 4 years ago there was a month long strike and it is not found here (back then technicians, pilots and cabin crew all went on strikeA). That deserves a mention rather than this. This strike is expected to end today. LukaP (talk)
A strike is when the employees of a company refuse to work for the management of the company. In this case, it has been reported that one company is refusing to perform further work for another company due to unpaid bills. This is not the same as a strike. The severe effect this has had on Jat Airways (suspension of operations) makes this notable enough to warrent a mention in the article. Mjroots (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In 2005 the airline had much more severe problems than it had these 3 days but it is not in the article. Plus the strike is over and aircraft are flying again. I think that in its 80+ year history the events which took place in the last 3 days are not that major. LukaP (talk)

Re-branding[edit]

Should the re-branding section be deleted since it has been confirmed they won't be changing their name or livery?

Marfin take over[edit]

Denied by the CEO so please do not add in the article Links:

It's an intention sir, not a 'IM GONNA TAKE YOU'. Therefor it requires some sort of mention in the article. Zaps93 (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the articles, sir? Have you read the bit where the CEO explains that Marfin is not buying, taking over or doing anything with Jat? Why would it deserve a mention then? It would be like writing about any rumour. LukaP

Semi-protected[edit]

I've semi-protected the article for a week due to IP editors removing huge sections of the article, which went from 35k to 11k overnight. Mjroots (talk) 05:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jat airlines - number of destinations[edit]

Jat is currently flying to 38 destinations if you dont believe look for some information except wikipedia. Im putting the destinations to 38, please dont change it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.30.132.188 (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jat does not fly to 38 destinations. You need only to count them. They say 38 destinations because they include code share routes that are operated by other airlines. This, however, should not be counted in the overall number of routes their plane actually fly to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaRojaVamos (talk • contribs) 20:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After tomorrow[edit]

What happens tomorrow? Do we rename this or write a new article? --Strower (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article on Air Serbia has already been started. Although it is a legal successor, there is too much history on JAT to simply rename the article. With that in mind, the I.P. editors should really stop playing around with the fleet section on Jat Airways, any new aircraft will obviously apply to Air Serbia and not Jat Airways... Buttons (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jat Airways[edit]

No mater what they've say on television Jat Airways officially still operates, you can still buy tickets over Website and it is active company in Business Registers Agency. So until real changes occurs this article should not be written in past sentence. --S T E V A N (talk) 11:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, Jat Airways will transition to Air Serbia through the next three months when the first two Airbus A319s are expected to arrive and replace the Boeing 737s, so late October or early November. Staff Briefing Air Serbia (around 13:12 min) Buttons (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous[edit]

I have removed the miscellaneous section of this article as it does not conform to Wikipedia's Manual of Style/Trivia and miscellaneous lists. Additionally, of the 13 listed points, only 7 are referenced. I advise the IP editor(s) who keep reverting this to cease and desist or I will request another lock for this article. Buttons (talk) 08:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I was wondering if we could add besides livery, a logo section, where the logos of the historical company would be displayed. But, either I missed them, or they are not found at commons. FkpCascais (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jat Airways. 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: 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) 22:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Jat Airways. 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: 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) 22:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Jat Airways. 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: 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) 00:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jat_Airways&oldid=1207804388"