Jump to content

Talk:King Fahd International Airport

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

Random

[edit]

This airport is faily unpopular with locals. It's a long way from Dharan/Dammam/Khobar (The cities it is meant to serve). It is more popular to fly in and out of Bahrain, where they offer special deals on parking and run a bus across the causeway to attract Saudi customers. Plus the added bonus of being able to get a drink at the Bahraini airport is an added bonus... My visit to this airport was interesting in that is was this huge massive cavernous terminal, and it seemed pretty much empty of activity.

  • Well, a lot of airlines, including British Airways, do not fly to this airport because of the high cost, and few passengers. Still, you've got the largest airport in the world! -- Eagleamn 07:18, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah the airport has had an unhappy time. Delayed, way over budget, and operational problems when it first opened (it had to be closed a week after opening). However, it isn't that far away, it is closer to the city centre than Riyadh airport was from it's respective city centre when it was first opened (the city has cought up now). But it felt far because of poor access (the spur from the highway wasn't complete). This has been addressed but the damage has been done. At least passenger numbers have stablised now. Maybe this is all worthy of a paragraph in the article?

HiJazzey 22:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you know this information, go ahead and add it to the article. Please cite any available sources you got the info from. -- Eagleamn 00:19, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
done HiJazzey
It is always good to know that there are actually people from Saudi Arabia (other than me) who do care about things like this. -- Eagleamn 00:25, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Sure thing. I try to chip in, although don't expect me to be too prolific. Salam. HiJazzey 18:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Size

[edit]

On Google Earth this airport seems not larger than 8x5 km. How do they calculate 750km²?‎ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.179.238.37 (talk • contribs) 20:09, April 7, 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling that the size in hectares corresponds to the size of the plot of land alloted to the airport. For example, O'Hare International Airport is built upon a large area (and is recognized as it's own municipality). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.237.155 (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had a similar question about the size. I think that the 776 sq. km. number needs to be removed for the time being. The linked source does not even give that figure. --Kseses14 (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

I've tagged this article as unreferenced. It's in dire need of references, particularly where the sizes are claimed. For example the article claims that the airport is 750 km2, something I doubt, and I can't seem to find any information to back this up. Any help in adding references would be much appreciated. Norman22b (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs clearing up on the size. The source (the airport itself) that is referenced (now?) says the total airport area is 77,600 hectares. When interpreting the "," as a "thousands delimiter", this means that its area is roughly the same as the area of a square with each edge/side being something like 28 km, or 17 miles. A square being 28 kilometres (17 miles) on each side? Sure, maybe this is the entire area that is OWNED by the airport, but the same source (the airport itself) states "Total 4,265 hectares" and "Airport 3,675 hectares". Those figures seem much more "real" to me as to the "real" size of the airport, not the area around it that may be used for cows now, grazing grass, or is just empty, or something, until the airport decides to expand into that. But I am just trying to interpret the meaning of the things stated on that referenced page... wjmt (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though I have absolutely no reason to challenge the fact that this airport is indeed the largest in the world "by area", the figures do seem unbelievably exaggerated. I had replaced a FACT-tag with a reference and updated figures on June 29, but the reference I provided was later replaced by a web-page written entirely in Arabic. Rather than revert or edit-war over it, I decided to compromise by replacing it with an English language page from the same web-site, which appears to have some usable data. But like yourself, I admit having no idea how to utilise this data in a sensible manner. The source-figure "77,600 Hectares" does however convert to 776km² or 299.62mi² (as the article states), so I figured I should just leave it alone. 142.68.84.18 (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on this project many years ago. It was seen as new by the saudi gov. even though all of the systems were years out of date by the time it opened. It had not had proper maintenance for years and NO systems were safe at the time of opening. Hope they have got it right now. They made me live out there at the airport in a wooden cabin and the promise of good housing and a car was just lies. Never trust a contact written in arabic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.185.152.146 (talk • contribs) 05:30, August 1, 2008‎ (UTC)

Is the site in the reference deffinately the official site? Just seems like very much an amature job to me. I've tried to find reliable data on the size of the airport before but not gotten anywhere. I really can't beleive the figure of 750 km2. As unscientific as this is, if you compare the size of it on google earth in comparsion to other large areas (cities, other areas etc) it doesn't look that large. If it really were that big, it would be comparable to most of southern England (I think...). The size provided by the first reference seems more believable, although it's difficult to tell wether it's reliable or not. We could do with a third source.Norman22b (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the site is the official site for the airport. It's just a rather poorly designed website. If you look at the project data page it states the following:
Total Airport Area 77,600 Hectares
Developer Areas
- Total 4,265 Hectares
- Airport 3,675 Hectares
- Construction Support/Utility Plants 510 Hectares
- Community 80 Hectares
This, I believe, clearly shows that the Airport itself is actually only 3,675 hectares (36.75km²). This would also make more sense given when you look at the airport on google earth it appears to be only around 30-40km². It is not unusual in the Arab world to have an airport "complex" which includes a major airport, large commercial district, large suburban housing development, and various utilities all bundled together. This is the same thing that is being developed in Dubai with the Al Maktoum airport. However, the actual airport in these complexes obviously don't take up the entire area. So it would seem that the information on the "Project Data" page on the airport's official website indicates that the total "complex" area is 77,600 hectares, but that the open developed area is only 4,265 hectares and the airport itself is only 3,675 hectares. Thus making it not the world's largest airport by size at all. This should be changed on the article page. I will check back over the next 2 weeks, and if no one comes up with a strong argument to the contrary, I will change the article to state it's size is actually 3,675 hectares. This will be referenced from the official airport website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bohuiginn (talk • contribs) 01:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Airlines

[edit]

Could we please have a list of airlines that serve it? james_anatidae 14:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done, someone has added the list of airlines. Kangxi Emperor 康熙帝 (talk) 06:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.airport-technology.com/projects/king-fahd/
    Triggered by \bairport-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on King Fahd International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on King Fahd International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Route table is not updated

[edit]

Recently, I amended passenger destination table to reflect most up-to-date information as provided by OAG, the leading schedules provider. However, editors LeoFrank and Andrewgprout reverted my changes to the old outdated information. Please refer to my comments on their actions in their respective talk pages. I'm writing this information here to bring your attention to the fact that the destination table is inaccurate. The changes that I made and were not accepted are:

  • Termination of operation by Air Arabia Jordan, Georgian Airlines, and Regent Airlines.
  • Termination of operation of flyNas to Abu Dhabi, and addition of services to Dubai, Jizan, and Karachi.
  • Termination of operation of Lufthansa to Kuwait.
  • New operation by Pegasus Airlines.
  • Termination of operation by Saudia to Islamabad, Istanbul, Najran, and Tbilisi.
  • Termination of operation by Turkish Airlines to Istanbul-Sabiha.

I also deleted some references to old sources which are superseded by my recent search in OAG. Imdashti (talk) 08:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Imdashti: Simple: WP:BURDEN. — LeoFrank  Talk 13:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are issues using booking engines and such for referencing new routes (WP:OR). Not only that, but airlines change their schedules so often, so the absence of a route from their schedule doesn't prove the destination is cancelled. There are airlines out there that publish great information about their destinations that require no interpretation, but booking engine referencing should not be used period, as they provide destinations that may not be direct. The fact that the tables aren't up to date is fine. What Wikipedia should be focusing on is historical routes, the ones that tend to be deleted (see WP:RECENTISM). Garretka (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a professional who worked in the air transport industry for 22 years, I can recognize what sources are reliable, and I know how to verify information. Replying by general arguments does not invalidate the facts presented in the changes I made. Further, not every change can be cited as clear as one wishes. For example, when airlines stop operating a route, they don't usually announce it. Most often, they do it silently. In the case of Dammam, as an example, you can find many articles about starting the route to Amman by Air Arabia Jordan in 2015, but you can hardly find sources about cancelling all their scheduled operations since a year ago. Regent Airways, on the other hand, did not operate to Dammam for months (as I can see from professional sources that cannot be freely and easily cited), yet all of that is done quietly. One last example is Lufthansa's operation to Kuwait, which is a minor route so you don't expect to hear much about it, but I know for a fact that it is cancelled because I work at Kuwait Airport. These are facts that you don't get easily by a simple citation, but a through thorough research like the one I made which took me almost an hour.
Further, as a professional, I know how to use booking engines to verify information, and I know how to distinguish between direct and connecting routes. As for the matter of recentism, I don't think it applies to the route table. Anyone reading the table would think that it should current. Historical routes can be included in their own section as I have seen in some airline articles. But I don't think that the route table should be outdated. I understand Wikipedia's tendency to verify information, but I resent refusal of information that can be verified differently. Imdashti (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's great that you know how to interpret sources. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Please read and understand WP:OR. Quite often, secondary sources do exist when airlines cancel routes, where they exist, use them. WP:V is quite clear on this policy.
Booking engines are textbook WP:OR. I'm not sure what you're getting at calling yourself a professional, to be honest. Wikipedias core policies apply to everyone. It also sounds like you have a potential WP:COI, so be mindful of that as well. When discussing matters on Wikipedia, it helps to cite policies, which you have failed to do.

To add, recentism certainly does apply to the tables. Suggesting otherwise turns these tables into a travel guide.Garretka (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:King_Fahd_International_Airport&oldid=1258000419"