Talk:Avianca

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

Fleet[edit]

There is a missing aircraft on the fleet section, Avianca currently has an order for 10 Airbus A350XWB-800 under the name or Synergy Aerospace. In addition to the 10 already signed orders there are 10 more options for A350XWB-800. We may want to include this into the fleet. DG (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes for suggested expansion of this article[edit]

According to this site: Airline History

  • Original name of the airline was Sociedad Colombo-Alemana de Transportes Aereos (SCADTA)
  • Apparently the full name of this airline is (or was at one time?) Aerovias Nacionales de Colombia
  • Name change to Avianca took place in 1940 after a merger with something called SCAO

Kevyn 10:10, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Chalk's Ocean Airways[edit]

Unfortunately, Chalk's Ocean Airways began operating several months before Avianca in 1919, but after KLM. Considering it is an official scheduled airline, recognized by IATA and has been so since then with its only days not operating being during World War 2, the claim the Avianca is the first airline of the Americas isn't entirly accurate. Being of Colombian descent, don't think I'm trying to descredit the airline, but I'd rather keep the article accurate than spare feelings and resentment of other Colombian nationals. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 20:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1919 or 1940?[edit]

Am I one the only one to notice a contradiction between two claims made in the article, i.e., Currently, Avianca holds the title as second oldest airline in the world still operating under its original name, second to KLM, and The airline was established in June 1940 by the merger of SCADTA and Servicio Aéreo Colombiano? The info box states it was founded in 1919, not 1940, by the way apoivre 21:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely a problem, but I'm not equipped with the knowledge to fix it. It seems, from what this article and the one on SCADTA--the latter of which is a bit of a mess, by the way--say, that Avianca only became known as such after the 1940 merger. If this is the case, then the claim earlier in the article that Avianca is the second oldest airline in the world (after KLM) still operating under its original name would be false--since Chalk's Ocean Airways would predate it. But I don't know enough about the merger to do anything about it. I'll research a bit and come back to the page if I find anything. Buck 20:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've looked into it, and it seems--much to the unhappiness of many of my fellow Colombians, I'm sure--that the real story is that Avianca didn't exist under that name until 1940, which means that this "flying under the same name longer" business doesn't apply to Avianca after all. Too bad, I guess, but it's better to have the story straight, right? I'll make the relevant changes. For more info, check out this[1] web page (in Spanish), which seems to get the story across in a more or less coherent way. Buck 20:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okk this article is from Aviacna web page "http://www.avianca.com/Inicio/Navegacion/AcercaAvianca/Nuestra+historia/en/NaceUnaHistoriaConAlas.htm"

"Thanks to the ingeniousness and adventurous spirit of a group of Germans and Colombians, Sociedad Colombo Alemana de Transporte Aéreo – SCADTA was founded in Barranquilla, Colombia on December 5, 1919. It was the first commercial airline founded in Latin America and the second one in the world.

The public document organizing Aerovías Nacionales de Colombia S.A. - Avianca was signed before a notary public in Barranquilla on June 14, 1940 as a result of the merger of SCADTA, already in American hands, and Servicio Aéreo Colombiano – SACO." So Avianca started in 1919 as SCADTA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.1.177.233 (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are misrepresenting the situation. Avianca was created from a merger of two other companies in 1940, it was not a simple name change. Look at British Airways; it can trace its lineage back to Imperial Airways, but it didn't exist until the 1970s. to cite another example, look at Air France, which again can trace its heritage back to just after World War One, but didn't exist until much later. The prior existence of both SACO and SCADTA is dealt with in the article (a bit too heavily in the case of SCADTA in my opinion), and I suggest that you accept the fact (and it is a fact) that Avianca came into being in 1940. Just in case you think I have a pro-Qantas bias, someone edited that article to suggest that it was now the oldest airline in the world following the Air France-KLM merger, and I reverted that edit as it wasn't true. YSSYguy (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Then Avianca was founded December 5 1919 (As Scadta) but with the current name since 14 June 1940 after the merger of SCADTA and SACO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.81.111.143 (talk) 05:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is in Spanish but is also taken directly from Avianca's Website. where it states the 90 years in operation. the fact that the company changed it's name does not mean it is not the same company just operating with another name because of a merge. Press Release 2009Press Release 2009 in addition Avianca's Adveritising is also showing 90 years. and also the spanish wiki shows 1919 as the foundation date. I hope this helps. you may translate them using google translator, or any other translation tool you may want. DG (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The airline's website does not constitute a reliable third-party source. YSSYguy (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

okay what about a Colombian Goverment page: " 1919 El Piloto Knox Martin, realiza el Primer Vuelo Postal, entre la ciudad de Barranquilla y Puerto Colombia transportando en su pequeño avión una saca con 60 cartas dentro. Nace de ésta forma el correo aéreo en el mundo, pues no hay antecedentes, antes de esta fecha, sobre prestación de servicios aeropostales. El 18 de septiembre se funda la Compañía Nacional de Navegación Aérea que efectúa los primeros vuelos transportando despachos oficiales de correo. Se firma el primer contrato con el gobierno nacional para el transporte de correspondencia; infortunadamente éste no llega al término acordado, pues la vida de la Compañía es muy corta y desaparece a los pocos meses de sus fundación. El 05 de diciembre ciudadanos colombianos y alemanes fundan en Barranquilla la Sociedad Colombo Alemana de Transportes Aéreos "SCADTA", que se convertiría más tarde en Aerovías Nacionales de Colombia "AVIANCA"."[1]

It is in Spanish, because Colombia is an Spanish speaking Country, and most of the governmental pages are in Spanish. however I have attached a translation here of what this article says under the section I have attached.

" 1919

The Pilot Knox Martin, made the first flight Postal, between the city of Barranquilla, Puerto Colombia in his small plane carrying a bag with 60 cards inside. It arises from this form airmail in the world because there is no history prior to this date, service provision Aeropostale. On 18 September is based National Air Navigation Company that made the first flights carrying official dispatches mail. First contract is signed with the national government to carry mail; unfortunately it does not reach the agreed term, then the Company's life is very short and disappears within months of its founding. December 05 Colombians and Germans founded the company in Barranquilla Colombo Alemana de Transportes Aereos "SCADTA" which later became Aerovias Nacionales de Colombia Avianca."[2]

This just shows everyone how this is denoted as a change in Name due to an association. in another real life example if you change your name, your birth date still is the same. you are not born again, you have just changed your name. this is the way I see this.

any comments are welcome :) DG (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same. A person is totally different to a company, This wasn't a change of name, it was a merger of two companies which formed a new company/identity. Both SACO and SCADTA ceased to operate/exist when Avianca was formed and began operating in 1940. Bidgee (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For in which situation you are not concidering Alianza Summa which is also the merge of 3 mayor airlines in the country, in addition to that I gave some references showing how the Colombian Goverment accepts and trats Avianca as a 90 year old company. DG (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with Summa, but the article suggests that it was an operating alliance among three airlines that previously competed with each other and continued to operate as separate airlines after the alliance was formed. So - not a merger and not relevant to this discussion as far as I can tell. No-one has yet explained how or why Avianca's history should be treated differently to that of British Airways or Air France. The book The Struggle for Airways in Latin America, written in 1943, is quite clear as to what happened. SCADTA was 80% owned by Pan Am since 1931. After the formation of Avianca from the merger of SCADTA and SACO in 1940, Pan Am owned 60% of the new company, the Colombian government owned 15% and other interests owned the remaining 25%. I suggest that the Colombian government does not constitute an impartial reference either for reasons of national pride. YSSYguy (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite some points I would like to address here and excuse me for all what I'm going to write, hope you can all read through it. First of all, I have to say I am on the Avianca's 1919 foundation date side but not because I'm colombian but because there are some facts about it. As YSSYguy said before, he edited Qantas profile when someone changed it saying that now it's the oldest airline after KLM and Air France's alliance (which is clearly not accurate) so I think I can also keep nationalism bias at bay as long as there are good sources to rely on.

Second, I also agree with YSSYguy regarding why Avianca shouldn't be treated any differently than other airlines like Air France or British Airways (to mention some) that have their foundation dates after merging with some or many other previous airlines. Now, why those airlines don't have an older foundation date but the merging one? I have no idea... maybe there's a specific case for each one of them but all in all, Avianca's case is different and it's acknowledged by reliable and important sources.

Third, I also believe that the airline's website does not constitute a reliable third-party source and even though I think he goes a bit to far when he states that the "Colombian government does not constitute an impartial reference either for reasons of national pride", I will mention something particular about it later on.

There are also 2 particular aspects regarding this whole issue with Avianca. One is the role of SACO and the other one is the name change to Avianca. If, let's suppose, SACO was not involved at all and Scadta would've changed its name to Avianca, I guess we could all agree that its foundation date would've remained 1919, correct? After all, name or acronym change doesn't affect the origin of an airline... if not, then Avianca's foundation date would've changed when German Efromovich purchased it, changing its acronym to "Aerovías del Continente Americano". And second, the name change to Avianca. If Scadta would've continued operating under the same name after it took over SACO in 1940 (and kept it to this days), then we would agree that its foundation date was still 1919. Same example goes for Delta after it took over Northwestestern... or did Delta's foudnation date changed to January or February 2010? I don't think so.

And there's also this minor "technical" thing some people hold to... if it was a merger or if one airline took over the other one. In reality, you'll find it everywhere as a merger but it was a take over just as Delta and Northwestern, even though you'll find it on their article as a merger. Air France and KLM was not a merger, it was an alliance just as Summa was.

But in this case, Scadta HAD to change its name to Avianca because of the huge issues with the starting of World War II and any possible references to (nazi) German association, regardless if the airline was owned by Colombians, non nazi Germans, Americans or a mix of resources from different nations origin. The "alemana" (german) word in Scadta's acronym was no good. All in all, the year says it all: In the early 1940, Peter von Braun was forced to sell his shares in the airline to America's Pan Am and in june (same year), they completely removed the name "Scadta". As someone stated a long while ago, yes, all Scadta assets and staff (crew) remained the same. Saco was just a legal excuse to legitimize the name change after the so called "merger".

Going into the references, even though YSSYguy doesn't recognize the Colombian government as an impartial one, the Aeronáutica Civil (government agency in charge of regulating civil aviation, the aviation industry and of managing the Colombian airspace), released Resolution 04888 in 2001 stating (translated): "By Public Document 2374 of December 5th of 1919 from the Second Notary in Barranquilla, the "SOCIEDAD COLOMBO ALEMANA DE TRANSPORTES AEREOS -SCADTA", was constitued, and then, in june of (1940), changed its denomination for "AEROVÍAS NACIONALES DE COLOMBIA -AVIANCA". Source: http://www.anato.org/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=category&id=1&download=66 Do note I'm leaving aside their refernce to Avianca being the second oldest (active) commercial airline in the world. I'll adress that one later.

I guess it's much better to bring forth REALLY reliable third party sources (specially after all this long rant). Right now, I have 2 very good ones and if someone is not willing to accept this sources as valid, then I really have no idea what you want to read or from whom you'd like to read it. Basically, these references validates all the previous rant as they acknowledge Avianca as the second oldest airline in the world:

My first reference is Boeing. In 1937, Avianca (back then still known as Scadta) acquired 10 Boeing 247 airplanes. 70 years later, when Avianca in 2007 announced the order for 10 (funny, same number of airplanes lol) Boeing 787, John Wojick, vice president, Sales for Latin America and the Caribbean -- Boeing Commercial Airplanes, said: "This order reaffirms the enduring relationship Boeing has maintained with this historic airline for 70 years". In the same news release, Boeing references Avianca as "Colombia's largest airline and the second oldest commercial airline in the world". Source: http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q1/070329e_nr.html

My second reference is another famous airplane manufacturer: Airbus. When Avianca recieved its first Airbus 320, John Leahy, Airbus Chief Operating Officer, Customers said: "Avianca is the second oldest commercial airline in the world and we are honored to welcome such a prestigious airline amongst our big family of Airbus A320 operators". Source: http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre/pressreleases/pressreleases_items/08_02_22_first_a2320_avianca.html Later, when Avianca recieved the first Airbus A330, the same John Leahy added: "We look forward to seeing our long range bestseller flying in the fleet of one of the longest established airlines of the world" Source: http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre/pressreleases/pressreleases_items/08_10_03_avianca_a330200.html (all bold letters added by me)

So there are some historic events related to World War II, the clear and paramount need to change Scadta's name and the inclusion of SACO as the perfect excuse for the airline to take over it and legitimize the name change to Avianca. There's also a legal document from the Colombian government agency that specializes in these subjects. But above all, 2 key references from the two biggest airplane manufacturers in the world that oficially in their news releases, mention Avianca as the second oldest airline in the world. In Boeing's case, the timeline fits perfectly from 1937 to 2007 as they mention the 70 years that Avianca has been a Boeing user. Finally, I would like to bring a copy of the exact text that was written in 1940 in Barranquilla when the airline chaged its name to Avianca to prove (futher more) what was said back then, how Scadta didn't really ceased to exist but it was rebranded to Avianca taking as an excuse the "role" that Saco played but how all the previous assets from Scadta remained. I don't live in Barranquilla but maybe something could be worked out to get such Document...

I still don't understand the difference between Avianca and Air France and British Airways to mention some. But if Boeing and Airbus recognize it, if Avianca painted aircrafts to celebrate its 85 and 90 years (clearly not making up a random number) and if the Colombian government also recognizes it, there HAS to be a difference... and if not, then AF, BA and all other relevant active airlines should bring forth their reasons as to why their foundation dates should go before the ones they currently have if their cases have the same legal and historic benchmarks as Avianca's. Mekanos (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see Mekanos's point about Airbus and Boeing. Mind it is possible that they get their info from Avianca... I'd argue that a Boeing press is a reliable source; we certainly consider them to be for info about the Boeing 787 and other aircraft pages. Perhaps some more discussion on this from YSSYguy and others? -- Flyguy649 talk 05:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Flyguy, now what date are we going to put, I see you have removed the lock for the page, but the date stills 1940. perhaps we shall wait for some other coments? DG (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course that the aircraft companies get info from the airlines. But I don't think that Boeing (or any other respectable aircraft manufacturer) would back up info that they dont take as reliable. They even mentioned about the 70 years that Avianca has been a Boeing user. Why would Boeing give Avianca all those years if it was not true? I still don't want to touch the main article until, as Flyguy said, we get some more discussion, or until a reasonable time has passed... Mekanos (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Boeing gets its information from the airline (Whether it is Qantas, Air New Zealand or Avianca) as boeing's goal is to sell, design and make aircraft and not doing its own independent investigation/research on an airlines history. Bidgee (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the Discussion was asking for reliable sources from a third source. Evidence has been provided from Colombian Goverment, Boeing, and Airbus. I personally think those 3 are very reliable sources. In fact Beoing and Airbus are oten used to citate other related articles. if we can not use them as a reliable source here. then all other uses must be discarted as well. and not only this one. it is either reliable or not. if it has previosly been used, them it will always be reliable. and once again if we are not going to recognize a goverment, and such big and important companies as sources, all the articles related to airlines in wikipedia are not reliable. as well as any other article citing sources from any Goverment. DG (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes Bidgee, then what is a reliable source for you? Basically what you are saying is that you consider possible that Boeing or Airbus, the 2 biggest airplane manufacturers in the world, would accept as valid whatever info is given to them by the airlines? In that line of thought, if Avianca tells them that the company was founded in 1905 then they will consider it as true? Same for any other Airline... if Emirates tells them that they are the oldest airline still in operation, they will believe them just because it's the big Emirates Airline? I really don’t agree with your assumption that those aircraft manufacturers will take for granted anything that's thrown to them, regardless if it's history, fleet or any other matter. I don’t think we need a deep PhD academic research to consider it as a valid source. And finally, I agree on stating both dates on the info box but it makes no sense to have a "founded" and "commenced operations" dates as different. It's more logical to either have "founded" and "rebranded" or "commenced operations" and "rebranded". Mekanos (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accidents[edit]

I dont think it should be said the accidents are low for an airline of this age

They have lost 3 Jet Aircraft in there history to pilot error, and compared to the likes of Qanatrs which was founded a year later, which has never lost a jet, and many other airlines established in that time, there record isn't very low

220.237.34.224 16:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's meant to say that for an airline that's been part of a country with such a turbulent past, it's had a very low count. Qantas, being #1 in those terms, has come from a country that hasn't had to deal with the amount of domestic terrorism that a country like Colombia has, while other airlines in countries with such pasts have experience much worse hijackings and malcious attacks. For an airline that had to deal with gang plots to bomb aircraft foor three decades, losing only three jets does deserve this mention. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 16:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fokker 100[edit]

at the time Avianca only have 4 Fokker 100 they are still waiting for the other 9 to be delivered.

FEATURE ARTICLE[edit]

I THINK IN MY OPINION THAT WITH SOME EXTRA LINKS THIS ARTICLE COULD QUALIFY AS A FEATURE ARTICLE. User:ColBog

It needs some internal links, like a notes section (see: Footnotes), that's going to be one of the major objections if this is put up for FA now, also the images need to be organized and spaced out some more, they're rather cluttered, then you also have to do a bit of a wording rewrite, grammar is good, but wording tends to lag in some places. Also, all the new service announcements and speculated aircraft purchases need citations to back them. There needs to be an external link to a reliable source stating that these destinations and/or aircraft are being considered or have been announced. I suggest taking the article through peer review first and seeing how it fares there, that should give you a lot of pointers on what to trim before taking it to FA Candidacy. Good Luck! -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 00:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to check up...[edit]

Hi. I have taken a look at this page and made a few changes. Whilst it is a long article, there are some things which may need to be sorted out. I have made these changes -

  • Accidents on Avianca aircraft have been significantly low for an airline of its age and location within a nation that has struggled with drug trafficking and organized crime problems. - removed. Very much a value judgement and would rather leave this out of an encyclopedia. Let the reader decide - it seems like someone may try to justify these actions.
  • In the 1990s, after the death or arrest of various traffickers at the hands of Colombian police, Avianca was able to regain its status as one of the safest airlines in the world. - Unsourced statement without proof. Removed
  • They are for the exclusive use of those enjoying our Business Class ... - removed whole paragraph about lounges. Sounds like either copy-paste or advertisment. No-no.
  • I have removed the news section -- this is not WikiNews. All that should be covered in the History, etc. anyway
  • Removed notes section -- speculation.

Someone may want to take an ever closer look at the article -- to make sure that its totally fixed.-- Chris Lester talk 16:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subsidiaries[edit]

I think that the term "Subsidiaries" is misused in this page. In order to become a subsidiary, there has to be a parent-owned relationship, in which the parent company owns at least 51% of the subsidiary; there is also administrative parenthood required to be called a subsidiary, since the parent company has to regulate or control the administration of the owned institution. A subsidiary is different in significance compared to affiliated which in this case reflects more clearly the ownership situation of the airline. Avianca´s parent company is the Synergy Group (SG), at the same time SG owns the shares of other companies like Ocean Air, VIP Ecuador, etc... The fact that Avianca belongs to this conglomerate, does not mean that these airlines are its subsidiaries since Avianca does not own them. These companies are only members or affiliates from the same economic group.

Regards,


200.89.6.215 17:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)MSevilla[reply]

Fully agree with this post. In addition, Volaris is not a subsidiary of Taca Airlines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.43.60 (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

new livery[edit]

when did avicanca update its logo? it must have been in the last year or so, no? 71.234.109.192 (talk) 08:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1990 crash controversy[edit]

I am wondering how (or whether) to incorporate information about the industry practice of restricting fuel to cut costs into the article without violating wikipedia guidelines. Are there any sources suggesting this did or did not contribute to the 1990 accident? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article protection - date of founding[edit]

Resolved
 – the argument and posts, including verified material directly from Avianca website's details that the airline was created in 1940 after a merger between SCADTA and SACO. I am including that material in the body of the article and it should remain so unless valid, third party verifiable evidence is provided on the talk page as to why the date agreed is incorrect. --VS talk 22:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from above and continuous edit warring at this article about that situation I have locked the article until consensus is formed. Please add your reasons for one or the other date below and I will consider when a reasonable amount of time has ensued.--VS talk 02:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avianca was founded in 1940 not 1919. If it was a simple rename of the company maybe but it wasn't a rename but a merger of SCADTA (which was founded in 1919) and SACO (founded in 1933), therefore creating a new company called Avianca in 1940 (which is the founded date). Avianca's own claim of being in the air for 85 years in 2004 is incorrect (Reason why Wikipedia doesn't allow primary sources) but in 1919 Avianca wasn't founded as it was SCADTA who was founded nor was Avianca founded in 1933 when SACO was founded. The name and company of Avianca was founded in 1940 due to the merger of two individual companies which ceased to exist in 1940. Bidgee (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please check [2] [3] from Avianca.com (the offical web site of AVIANCA), was not created a new company just changed the name of the company happened to be SCADTA AVIANCA never created a new company, at no time has been quoted the same source as Wikipedia. And I think that there is no source more reliable than the information given by the same airline through its website where it clearly says that 2004 brings 85 years of uninterrupted operation, and was founded in 1919.--Nicop (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The two references you have provided are both the same - and they appear to support the argument that Avianca was founded in 1940 with the words The public document organizing Aerovías Nacionales de Colombia S.A. - Avianca was signed before a notary public in Barranquilla on June 14, 1940 as a result of the merger of SCADTA, already in American hands, and Servicio Aéreo Colombiano – SACO. Do you have another reference?--VS talk 20:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I have noted before, other airlines wih a just-as-impressive pedigree as Avianca's are deemed to have been in existence since the date of a merger; see British Airways and Air France. I see no reason for Avianca to be treated differently to these two very prominent airlines. YSSYguy (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, if I begin to disagree with your idea of what happened with Avianca it's a case completely different from what British Airways or Air France actually happened with Avianca. Becuase what really happened was SCADTA was a simple change of name, which doesn't alter the foundation date, which is very different from a change of the company. SCADTA never altered anuthing, or even stopped from serving to change the name, i search others references to support de real idea.--Nicop (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nicop, please can you provide evidence of your claim above, and as per my comment a little further above please can you provide the correct address of the other diff?--VS talk 06:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are all you want, but in Spanish, including the Chamber of Commerce, for there DIAN are all necessary information here in Colombia, but all in Spanish.--Nicop (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So after stating that there is no more reliable information than the company's own website, and seeing that the company's website states that AVIANCA was formed in 1940 as the result of a merger between SCADTA and SACO, you think this information should now be ignored as being incorrect? YSSYguy (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment SCADTA and Avianca have been and will be the same company. It was a thin change of name because there was a unjustified suspicion about SCADTA links with Nazi Germany. This measure was promote by the U.S. government at that time. All German assets outside were intervened as precautionary measure for diminishing the Third Reich international influence. In the case of SCADTA, there was just a trivial change of name. All SCADTA assets and staff (crew) remained same. The merger with SACO was just a excuse to intervene German interests in Colombia. The U.S. government was satisfied removing the word "German" from the formal company name: Sociedad Colombo Alemana de Transportes Aéreos. Ju98_5 (talk) 05:20 p.m., 7 February 2009 (GTM-5)
But Ju98 5, what you have described is what happens during a merger, regardless of the reason for that merger (and it must be remembered that airline mergers often happened for political reasons). Two or more companies (of which one may be bigger than the other/s) come together, and a new company is formed with the same assets and the same staff. Why should Avianca be treated differently to Air Canada, Air France, American Airlines, British Airways or Delta Airlines, just to name a few? These are all airlines that can trace their history via mergers back to the 1920s (or 1919 in the case of Air France) but which have their dates of inception as the dates of the mergers that resulted in their current names. YSSYguy (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was just a trivial change of name. Nowadays, all the companies do it remaining same: En Colombia la aviación comercial ha tenido una importancia destacada desde sus albores como negocio, apenas iniciándose los años veinte del siglo pasado. En efecto, mediante Escritura Pública 2374 del 5 de diciembre de 1919 de la Notaría Segunda de Barranquilla fue constituida la SOCIEDAD COLOMBO ALEMANA DE TRANSPORTES AÉREOS, SCADTA, que luego, en junio de 1949, cambió su denominación por la de AEROVÍAS NACIONALES DE COLOMBIA. AVIANCA, hoy una de las aerolíneas solicitantes y la segunda más antigua en el mundo de la aviación comercial. Source: http://www.anato.org/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=category&id=1&download=66. Ju98_5 (talk) 09:00 p.m., 8 February 2009 (GTM-5)
Mail from Avianca, confirm Avianca was founded in 1919:

Señor xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Respetado señor:


Dando respuesta a su requerimiento nos permitimos ratificar la información de nuestra página web quien informa que nuestra compañía se fundo el 5 de diciembre de 1919 en Barranquilla bajo el nombre de SCADTA - Sociedad Colombo Alemana de Transporte Aéreo -, lo que significa que vamos para 90 años de existencia.

Mil gracias por entrar en contacto con nuestra Aerolínea. Esperamos de esta forma haber aclarado sus inquietudes.


Gracias por su atención, dejamos a su disposición el Departamento de Relaciones con el Cliente para cualquier inquietud adicional.


Cordialmente,


Bibiana Moreno Sánchez

Relaciones con el Cliente

Avianca

Rc-124899

Teléfono: 4013434 Bogotá

Fax: 4049048 Bogotá

E-mail: bmoreno@avianca.com

Another question?.--Nicop (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ Nicop This detail does nothing to support your contention because (a) it is in Spanish, (b) it could have been written by anyone, (c) it appears to be written by a primary source - and we require reliable secondary sources from which we can verify such information. @ all editors - a consensus of thought seems to have occurred and on that basis I will be happy to close this discussion however I will wait until the weekend just in case there is some final information that persons would like to post at this thread.--VS talk 21:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that nationalism or patriotism is distorting what actually happened. If SCADTA took over SACO the way that Qantas took over Australian Airlines, or American Airlines took over TWA, there would be no problem. But the airline itself on its website describes what happened as a merger. So, I would like my two earlier questions answered. 1. Should the Avianca website's statement that the airline was created in 1940 from a merger between SCADTA and SACO be ignored, and if so why? 2. Why should Avianca be treated differently to other airlines that were created from mergers? YSSYguy (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected[edit]

I've unprotected the page. If disputes break out that can not be resolved by discussion here, protection can be requested at WP:RFPP. -- Flyguy649 talk 21:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Livery[edit]

I for one cannot understand the livery section, it is a table filled with dates and aircraft and something about Pan-Am and Eastern colours (not exactly the most straight-forward way to describe the livery!) this section and article would be very much enhanced with more pictures of the livery (so far there is a grand total of 2!) on from the 70s and the other one is most unclear and of poor quality. The British Airways one for example is much better with high quality pictures of all 4 BA liveries, with detailed description.SJHQC (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revised Fleet Section[edit]

I revised the fleet section, removing the information that the Fokker 50 and Fokker 100 will be phased out. According to a recent article in "Airliner World", Avianca is happy with both aircraft and has no plans in the near future to replace them.

Operatin Income[edit]

The operating income is in COP which is good as this is a Colombian Airline. for general information this number shall also be put in Dollars, as COP does look pretty big and can be confusing to read. Asd of Today, the exhange rate for this is $1.892,99 COP for $1.00 USD. DG (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subsidiary Info[edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page.

Just looking at this article, there is allot of information that about Subsidiary airlines that is duplicated on that Subsidiary airline page. I have just removed a fleet table that had information about aircraft for Subsidiary airlines because that information is olso on the own subsidiary airline page. Should this type duplicate information be removed and we concentrate on Avianca rather than the Subsidiaries? Seems rather pointless to repeate this information. Other airlines are not like this on Wikipedia --JetBlast (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help me is supposed to goon your talk page (User talk:JetBlast). ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 10:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you are asking is a matter for discussion on this talk page. Wait for other editors to comment here. -- Donald Albury 11:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content[edit]

In these number of edits i have removed a large amount of content. I have put the reasons by each edit. Most of it was lists of un-encyclopedic content. Also removed a section that was tagged with needing sources for the past 18 months. I have also removed some content from the fleet table to comply with policy. --JetBlast (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EwnSSfmkDNY/UaS3gGzjsEI/AAAAAAAABpw/I7gU5WUWIwQ/s640/375052_656844454342824_1697476416_n.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.179.19.224 (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please edit this logo (font) from http://www.logomaker.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Avianca-Logo.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.179.19.224 (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Avianca. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Avianca. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 22:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Avianca. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 13:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Avianca. 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) 13:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Avianca. 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) 07:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Destinations[edit]

Is missing Germany since Munich is their destination from 16 November 2018. Has to be corrected. Tokota (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ http://www.adpostal.gov.co/secs/corporativa/historia4.htm
  2. ^ http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http://www.adpostal.gov.co/secs/corporativa/historia4.htm&sl=es&tl=en

Introduction[edit]

This is my first time reading this article and I think the introduction is way too long, which was what I thought of instantly. I think half or even 3 quarters of it should be split into another paragraph or two. It’s just really hard to read, especially if you have dyslexia. Fork99 (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Avianca&oldid=1208628057"