Talk:Helsinki-Vantaa Airport

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Aviation / Airports (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
Taskforce icon
This redirect is supported by the airport project.
WikiProject Finland (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a community effort to raise the quality of pages related to Finland. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.WikiProject icon
Start This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 High  This redirect has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Closest Major City[edit]

C'mon, what's the rationale behind putting Vantaa and not Helsinki? The infobox should indicate the closest MAJOR city that the airport serves, in the case of HEL, is Helsinki, not Vantaa. I doubt that a lot of people know more of Vantaa than Helsinki. I'd assume not a lot of people even know that there is a city called Vantaa. By the way, anonymous user, you're already violating the 3RR rule. Elektrik Blue 82 16:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:, please stop reverting back to Vantaa in the infobox. Helsinki is the major city that the airport serves - you'll note it's called Helsinki-Vantaa Airport. Yeas, the airport is in Vantaa, and that is mentioned clearly in the article text. Thanks/wangi 18:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As other users have pointed out, other articles follow the same format. The major city should be listed under "served". To carry the examples provided even further, would you say that Louis Armstrong-New Orleans International serves Kenner, LA simply because it's located there? There's pretty much nothing in the town except the airport. Rather than decide where to draw the line on a case-by-case basis, the general rule should be the major city. Dbinder (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First of all I'm sorry. I didn't know about any RRR rule.

It may be true that not a lot of people know where Vantaa is located. But also not a lot of people outside Europe even know where Finland is located (well that's before Conan O'Brien and his keen interes in Finland) and I don't think anyone traveling abroad doesn't take the five minutes and get to know the place they are traveling to and learn the basic hellos and such.

Since you're all foreigners, here's some basic info about the Vantaa Airport:

The Airport is Vantaa's largest employer and in 2001 the Airport employed 11 078 people, 92% of them from Vantaa.

It's area is only 5,6% from Vantaa's total area.

It doesn't have any border with the Helsinki.

The Airport is located within the city of Vantaa (hence the name Helsinki-Vantaa Airport).

As you can see it clearly serves Vantaa, not Helsinki. I think I've read somewhere that only a small minority of the passangers are actually from Helsinki.

Kenner VS Vantaa:

population: 70 516 - 187 281

area: 39,4km² - 242,74km²

Vantaa is the 4th largest city in Finland.

Now taken into comparison that New Orleans is much larger than Helsinki so that name is justified. As I can see things are a little different in America then here in the real world. Because you live there how can you know anything about what's happening here. I live here in Vantaa. Don't you think I should know. Just leave this to the professionals.

PS: You might want to see the article about Malmi Airport.

Your's truly: 13:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In that case, if other people see that HEL serves Vantaa, I wonder how many would think "I wonder what airport one needs to go to in order to go to Helsinki?" Elektrik Blue 82 13:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"I don't think anyone traveling abroad doesn't take the five minutes and get to know the place they are traveling to and learn the basic hellos and such." 14:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Based on a Googlefight: Helsinki has 101,000,000 hits. See it here. Vantaa on the other hand only has 5,920,000. See it here. Now which one is more major for the area? Elektrik Blue 82 14:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you really think google solves anything. We aren't discussing about which one is larger, we are discussing about which is the closest mayor city. Helsinki, Vantaa and Espoo are all mayor cities in Finland. It is located in Vantaa, hence Vantaa is the closest mayor city. 15:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The logic here is baffling. The airport mainly serves Helsinki - most people travelling through it will be going to/from Helsinki. I mean, do you think London Luton Airport serves Luton, or London?

I will accept Greater Helsinki (for now). I just have to correct you on one point: By their own studies the Helsinki-Vantaa Airport is mainly a checkpoint for most people travelling through it. I think I've read somewhere that Finnair is the only European airline that flyes straight from Japan, China and other Asian countries so people traveling from Asia fly to Vantaa and continue their journey to other Western countries. And also, compared to London, Luton is a tiny little town, very different than the situation here in Finland. What you should do, is compare New York with New Jersey. That's more realistic comparison, but like I said I will accept Greater Helsinki although it should read Capital region (=Pääkaupunkiseutu, the term we here in Finland use). 15:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your claim that living in Vantaa somehow makes you a professional in this matter, as well as your sweeping personal attack against an entire country - "As I can see things are a little different in America then here in the real world" - significantly diminish your credibility. Furthermore, we do not need your "acceptance" for this article. Things are done by consensus. Based on edit history, I see at least 4 editors who have reverted your changes. Living in Finland does not give you superiority or ownership of the article. Furthermore, if you continue to revert changes, you will be in violation of the 3-revert rule and the matter will be brought to the attention of the administrators. Dbinder (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. I'm not looking for anyone's acceptance nor am I giving it to anyone.

2. I do not claim to be a professional on this matter but living in Vantaa does make me more professional than somenone living on the other side of the world.

3. Living 3 kilometers from the Airport gives me insight, not superiority or ownership as you claim, although most of the times they are the same.

4. Learn to read between the lines. I'm not trying to offend anyone but if you choose to be offended, that's not my problem.

5. Since when does the majority get to deside what's right and wrong (U.S politics aside)?

Your's truly (hopefully): 11:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. OK; what's your point?
2. Not really. This is the English Wikipedia and so should be appropriate for English speakers, not just people living in Vantaa, Finland.
3. No, actually, they aren't the same. See WP:OWN.
4. While I am not personally offended, your comments are offensive. There's a difference.
5. Since Wikipedia was formed. See WP:CONSENSUS.
Dbinder (talk) 03:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. My point is to weed out the false rumours.
2. If I'm right, I'm right. It's that simple.
3. I'm just trying to make sure that the right info gets through.
4. That's life. Get used to it.
5. So if a mayority decided that the number for Pi is 3,1, it would be right!? 10:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know why this conversation is still continuing since a compromise was reached some time ago. However, I will respond to this mindless dribble one last time. First, please learn English if you're going to write on the English Wikipedia. The term is "get used to it", not "get just to it". Also, "weed out", not "weep out"; weep means to cry. Also, "mayority" is not a word, it's "majority". And in response to #2, since there is no "right" answer for this question, your comment there makes you sound even more childish than before. Dbinder (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My opinion is that the article should prefer Helsinki over Vantaa, even though the airport is physically located in Vantaa, and mainly employs Vantaa'ans. The reason is simply that this airport is by far the largest, and best known, airport in the entire metropolitan area (Helsinki, Espoo, Kauniainen, Vantaa). As far as I know, the only airport physically located in Helsinki is the Helsinki-Malmi airport, and it is only used for small-time hobby aviation, and would have been demolished if Helsinkians had not wanted to preserve it as a historical site. If the article would mention Vantaa, but not Helsinki, people would ask where the Helsinki airport is, then. In Finland, Vantaa is a very well known city, but I have to admit that if you ask foreigners, the only Finnish places they've ever heard of are Helsinki and Lapland, if they've heard of Finland at all. JIP | Talk 10:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Helsinki and Uusimaa[edit]

Someone keeps changing the city_served parameter from Helsinki to Uusimaa. However, the Infobox Airport template documentation states: "city-served: If the airport is associated with a major city but actually located in a smaller town, list the major city here and the smaller town under location." Uusimaa is a region, not a city, so I am reverting it back to Helsinki. (Besides, Helsinki is far more well-known than Uusimaa.) --Apalsola tc 23:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The category Category:Transport in Helsinki is fine, because this is indeed by far the most used airport used when travelling to or from Helsinki by air. However, it should not be placed into the category Category:Buildings and structures in Helsinki, because despite the name, and the connection to Helsinki, it is not in Helsinki. JIP | Talk 14:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HEL-BOS on Finnair[edit]

Helsinki to Boston is a seasonal scheduled flight. It is possible to buy tickets from any source (eg. Expedia, Orbitz, etc.); the schedules are published on Finnair's website, on OAG, on the oneworld website, etc.; Finnair is listed as a scheduled carrier on the MassPort website (the owner of Logan International). If it's a "scheduled charter" (which is an oxymoron anyway), then it should still be listed. There is nothing that says not to list scheduled flights if they are considered charters by the airline. Failing to list is misleading and implies the airline doesn't actually fly a route that it most certainly does. DB (talk) 06:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Finnair itself doesn't list it as a scheduled destination, it's under "Leisure fights" which have a lower service level, less space in Y (no biz seats) etc. So how about trusting Finnair, not MassPort? Here's the press release: The fact that you can buy tickets from Expedia has nothing to do with it. FlyerBoy 14:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The configuration of the plane is irrelevant. Should Ted by United flights not be listed at all since they have a different configuration (all coach) from the mainline flights? A scheduled charter is still a scheduled flight. DB (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The point is that they fly on a fixed schedule between Helsinki and Boston (via Stockholm). They actually aren't really charter flights, but leisure flights, since charters are non-scheduled. DB (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"A scheduled charter is still a scheduled flight." Where's the logic? Any sources? A scheduled charter is still a charter flight, just like a catfish is still a fish, not a cat.FlyerBoy 19:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's called common sense. I looked at several sources of published schedules (Expedia, OAG, oneworld, Finnair itself, etc.) and all of them had the HEL-BOS route. So please provide a logical explanation for this if it's indeed a non-scheduled flight. DB (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well let's check some Finnair sources. Under -> Destinations -> Intercontinenal: SCHEDULED Bangkok Hong Kong New York NY Shanghai Delhi Kuala Lumpur Osaka Singapore Guangzhou Nagoya Beijing Tokyo
Let's see what the printed Finnair Travel Guide (=Timetable) tells us:
Page 6: "In addition to regular scheduled traffic Finnair operates Leisure flights to more than 60 destinations..."
Page 16: "LEISURE FLIGHTS. Leisure flights are mainly part of package tours sold by travel agents. These flights use Finnair aircraft and crews and serve about 60 different seasonal destinations annually. Individual flight tickets without tour packages are also sold for many Leisu flight destinations. They may be purchased directly from Finnair or travel agents."
Page 22 shows us Baggage Guidelines on Finnair. The guidelines are diveded into two sections: scheduled flights and leisure flights.
Page 63 has a Finnair destination map. The only scheduled destination on the map in North America is JFK. BOS, MIA and YYZ are listed as Leisure flights.
Pages 67-148 have shows us the flight schedules. Intercontinental fights have flight numbers 0-99. Leisure flights use numbers 1000-2999. HEL-BOS is AY2421. -> Finnair Plus -> Plus Information -> Rules: 3.9 Points are granted for all Finnair (AY) scheduled flights for which members have paid the official published fare. The Finnair carrier code (AY) must appear on the ticket at Carrier'. Points are granted for Finnair Leisure Flights originating in Finland, in accordance with a separate table. FlyerBoy 21:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. That doesn't change anything. I didn't actually look in Finnair's printed timetable, although the flight is listed in their electronic one. Charter flights without published schedules that must be purchased through travel agents or some sort of package should not be listed. However, as you quoted Finnair as saying, "Individual flight tickets without tour packages are also sold for many Liesure flight destinations." Since these are available to anyone and operate on a fixed schedule, they should be listed as such. DB (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, as you can see, Finnair clearly states these are not regular scheduled flights. So why don't you, DB, list all those 60 leisure flights destinations under this Helsinki-Vantaa article? Then we could see the consensus on this matter. I can guarantee you will get reverted quite quickly. At HEL those destinations are definitely not seen as scheduled destinations. FlyerBoy 23:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at the edit history, you appear to be the only one removing leisure flights. More than one user has tried to put them in. DB (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And looking at this discussion, you clearly don't want to listen to what Finnair says about its own flights. I'm still waiting for you to list all those leisure destinations that you can buy individual tickets to. FlyerBoy 09:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Official name change?[edit]

Should it be corrected that the name is now just Helsinki Airport? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]