Talk:Harry Reid International Airport

Aviation: Airports B‑class

This 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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the airport project.

	Nevada B‑class (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nevada, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NevadaWikipedia:WikiProject NevadaTemplate:WikiProject NevadaNevada articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Does anyone have some information for the Cargo section?Vegaswikian

Does anyone have airport pictures we can use?

• Terminals
• Welcome sign at D Gates
• Murals at D Gates tram stop

OK, if this is a name also used for this terminal, why is it that so many people who work at the airport don't even know it? To almost everyone it is simply Terminal 2. That is how it is listed on just about every sign. It is infrequently called the international arrivals terminal or the international terminal. During construction it was sometimes listed as the Charter/International Terminal to indicate its purpose but not as a name for this. The Signature terminal is also probably better know as the charter terminal then terminal 2. So, it would be interesting to hear where that name is actually used.

Terminal 1 is frequently called the main terminal, but I don't think listing that as an alternate name is something that should be done. Vegaswikian 18:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have started a discussion about the image's status on it's Talk page--N35w101 18:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped this tag since the effort was being described as slash and burn apparently the standard airport terminal list of airlines, gates and destinations were deemed as as unsightly. Personally I think changes like that should be discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports because that is the format used for all large airports. Vegaswikian 18:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's going on with this "slash and burn", but the airline listing is unusual as I see it for at least two reasons. First, there are sections about museums, art and such after the airline info. In every other airport article I've seen the airline section is at the end, in front only of various links. Second, It seems very ususual to list charter airline services. Most airport pages list only scheduled service. I definitely agree that the list itself should be kept, however. Rdore 18:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it belongs at the end, then it should have been moved there and not just deleted completly from the article. Besides the scheduled services, McCarren is a major hub for sightseeing flights. Those can not be ignored. One common way to address items that tend to increase the the size of an article or to complicate the layout is to create a new article to split out that information. Is that a better solution here? If so, what should be moved out, all airlines that will be moving to the new Sloan airport/heliport? All sightseeing operations. Vegaswikian 20:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I definitely don't support deleting airline information. However it seems to be much more of a mess, than on most airport articles. And its formatting is a mess. I'm also curious why gate info is listed - it's not available on most airports airports (just checked SFO, LAX, ORD, JFK, ATL and didn't see it). It also seems hard to update and/or verify. And it clutters up the list, especially since most airlines don't seem to have continuous blocks of numbers. (I am in favor of maintianing by concourse info.) As far as charter information, I think it would be better to make a separate listing like there is with Anchorage. Any objections? Rdore 21:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The gate information was there when I arrived on wiki. So I don't know if there is any history behind it. If there are no objections I don't see a reason to keep it. Like you said, one less thing to keep updated. No problem converting to a series of heading for the different types of services. I would like to see what the Airports project has to say before making a major overhaul in that area. It would be nice to have a common guideline to use. Vegaswikian 22:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I would object. I think gate information is useful and should be kept. Granted, some airports make this information obvious and readily available; others do not. Still, where available it's pertinent, albeit technical information, and appears at a variety of different airports besides this one, although such information does appar to be lacking from the big airports. Oh, and Hi, by the way, I'm Allstar86 and I've been creating and editing airport pages for a few weeks now. Allstar86 05:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - when I dropped the terminal list, I wasn't aware that this was a standard inclusion in airport articles - it just struck me as being a particularly long section disturbing the flow of an article which was already too long. With this included at the end, with reduced to information, I think it's a fairy reasonable article now. TheMadBaron 07:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The terminal section would be fine without the long list of destinations, which I feel is more suited to the individual airlines and airport websites. People who wish to know the desitations of specific carriers can already find this information in other places. dok 09:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is standard information on every airport page. If you really feel it should be removed, I'd like to see some discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports, rather than just making the changes here. Rdore 16:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. The problem with McCarran is that it has flights to a lot of destinations and with many airlines. That results in several airlines flying to the same location with small planes, the only widebodies I'm aware of are a few 747 on the overseas flights. McCarran does not want to be a hub and it's layout does not support hib operations very well. McCarran and LAX are the two main airports with this problem. McCarran also is a major sightseeing flight hub and it may be the only airport in the top 20 busiest with this type of traffic. Throw in unique traffic like multiple flights a day to Area 51 and it makes for a lot of interesting information. If someone is going to cleanup the article then rewriting the bad areas is more appropiate then deleting everything. If you want to cleanup something in this article give the transportation section a shot. It needs real work. Vegaswikian 19:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I rolled back the change made by an anon for several reasons. 1, the offical numbers are not out. McCarran could be 9th or 10th based on the numbers for Amsterdam Schiphol Airport. 2, changing the date makes it look like the cargo numbers are from 2005 and they are not. 3, the figure in the article at the time of the change was an estimate and not the offical number. I'll add the one from their website shortly. Vegaswikian 19:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did a similar revert today. Does anyone have access to the final 2005 data yet? Vegaswikian 00:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a mix between the length in feet and meters. The length in meters should be under feet and vice versa. Did someone knows how to fix it? Chagai 19:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

good point, ill fix it 72.83.117.107Nweinthal

I reverted the SkyValue change since it is cleanly in the wrong place. I had moved it to a better place in the terminal listing, but someone apparently decided that it did not belong. Likewise it has already been documented what the source, which was a concern, is so we don't need that to be included in the list. If someone wants this added back in, see where I had moved it and created a correctly formated (I belive) entry. Put it back there or in a better place, like if you know what terninal they will actually be using. Vegaswikian 18:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LAS is NOT a secondary hub for US Airways. The airline's current route map considers LAS as a US Airways' hub. Bucs2004 04:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph about WiFi under history read like a press release. Which it was, McCarran is not a WiFi Zone, first your equipment has to be WiFi Alliance certified (which it is) but the airport has to list with the WiFi Alliance which it has not [1]. I work at the airport, and know that none of the hallways have WiFi, or some do, it is very weak. Ben 21:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To echo my comments on this - when I visited last year, I departed via the 'International Departures Terminal', and as of April 2006, there was *NO* wireless coverage in that building. 213.143.9.20 12:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Airways does not fly to Las Vegas, they code share with American from Dallas.

• They use to code share with HP. So if you have not dropped them from the list I'll do that. Vegaswikian 22:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a news agency talks about it, you may never know about unless you rent from one of those companies. It does exist.

• Which makes it OR and COI which means it can not be included. Vegaswikian 04:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We seems to be seeing a lot of vandalism and spam edits from anon and new accounts. Is it time to semi protect this page using the {{tl:pp-semi-vandalism}} template? Vegaswikian 19:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AirTran has a lot of future destinations from LAS. Could we call it a focus city?

• I suggest moving the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Focus city definition since this needs to be better defined for all uses of this term. There have been edit wars in the past over the definition. Vegaswikian 00:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I returned the incidents header introduced by anon IP. It seems well-written and referenced. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That may be, but the airline and airport project both have established guidelines for these. Basically if there was not loss of life or airframe lost the incident is too minor to list. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarification. Binksternet (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The picture under Terminals, airlines and destinations is out of date. It doesn't show Manila and it shows London Stansted as a destinstion. The service to London Stansted was operated MAXjet who went bankrupt in December 2007. Can anyone list it for speedy deletion? 71.193.162.77 (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]