Talk:Kahului Airport

OGG

Does anyone know the story behind the OGG identifier for the airport? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

United Airlines

I believe that United Airlines also flies to Kona from Kahului. This flight is a segment of its ORD-OGG-KOA-ORD flight. Am I not right? If I am, Kona should also be listed as a destination under United Airlines

Technically, that's correct, though as Kona International Airport's article states, it's largely because of technical limitations that it has to triangle out to Kona (Kahului's runway is too short). KeithH 02:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Per United's booking engine, service from Kahului/Maui to Chicago is now nonstop as UA348 but it is a seasonal flight. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

US/AA

Please see and/or discuss at Talk:US Airways. We are now adding a footnote to US Airways saying that US flights will become AA flights on October 17, 2015. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kahului 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111120010832/http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/MapItDrawServlet?geo_id=16000US1522700&_bucket_id=50&tree_id=420&context=saff&_lang=en&_sse=on to http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/MapItDrawServlet?geo_id=16000US1522700&_bucket_id=50&tree_id=420&context=saff&_lang=en&_sse=on
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207085349/http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR90-05.pdf to http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR90-05.pdf

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) 03:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

Why do the airlines keep getting removed, this is ridiculous! Bradenmeddleton (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Because the content was unsourced, it’s that simple. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:15, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

many of these had sources via news articles of the launch, airline websites, airport websites etc. you guys are just too strict Bradenmeddleton (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

So why weren’t said sources in the article? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:56, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, I looked again at the removal - the only sources which were removed were a flight tracker and Aeroroutes - neither of which are reliable for routes. So the vast majority of content was removed because it simply had no source. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:59, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

how? Bradenmeddleton (talk) 02:58, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Eh? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 06:54, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Removing all the Hawaiian and Southwest entries on “unsourced” grounds is excessive. These airlines account for the vast majority of traffic at OGG, and the inter-island routes to HNL, LIH, ITO, and KOA have operated continuously for decades. These aren’t contested claims — they’re the airport’s core, decades-long operations, verifiable to anyone who has ever set foot in Hawaii.

Per WP:BLUE, citations aren’t required for facts that no reasonable reader would dispute. WP:V requires material to be verifiable, not that every line carry a footnote. That Hawaiian flies HNL–OGG is on the same level as “Honolulu is in Hawaii” — anyone who doubts it can confirm it on the airline’s website, the airport operator’s website, or US DOT T-100 segment data in seconds.

Footnoting every single airline–destination pair would actually make the article worse. You’d end up with dozens of citations to the same handful of route-map pages, cluttering the references section and providing no new information. That’s citation spam, not verifiability.

If a specific entry is genuinely doubtful — a new route, a seasonal one, a route that may have been quietly dropped — tag it and someone will source it. But blanking established inter-island routes that have been operating since before most of us were born is not how WP:V is meant to work. Lnn823 (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I fundamentally disagree. Content on Wikipedia must be sourced - the intent of WP:BLUE is exactly as the name of that essay states - not needing to source the blindingly obvious, ie facts that are obvious to readers regardless of background or knowledge level. Everyone knows the sky is blue - but does a reader in, say, California or Europe know which flights can be taken from Kahului? No, because it's not blindingly obvious… it's a claim made in the Wikipedia article which must be backed up by a reliable source.

It's worth noting that this is far from the worst airport article out there… there are still some with literally hundreds of unsourced routes in their destination table. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:08, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Stepping back from the WP:BLUE point, I think the more fundamental issue here is procedural rather than substantive: when content clearly belongs in an article and is trivially sourceable, the policy-preferred response is to source it, not to delete it.

WP:V itself is explicit on this: the threshold is "verifiability", not verified — material must be capable of being verified against a reliable source, not already accompanied by an inline citation in every case. WP:PRESERVE then states directly: "As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a 'finished' article, they should be retained if they meet the three core content policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability, and No original research." Again "verifiability" not "verified".

For routes like Hawaiian HNL–OGG or Southwest LAS–OGG, the question isn't whether they're verifiable — they obviously are, against the airline's own materials and the airport operator's listings, both of which are explicitly acceptable per the 30 April 2026 RfC close. The question is who does the work of attaching the citation. Choosing wholesale deletion over -tagging or actually sourcing the content is a choice — and it's the choice that WP:V's standard and WP:PRESERVE specifically counsel against.

You've mentioned that other airport articles have hundreds of unsourced entries. If the standard response to that is going to be mass-removal rather than sourcing, the project loses an enormous amount of accurate, easily-verifiable information about airports' actual operations. That seems like the wrong direction, especially when the alternative — tags, allowing time for sourcing, restoring with citations — is built directly into how WP:V is meant to operate.

I'm happy to do the sourcing work for the major established routes here at OGG, though I'd note that requiring an individual inline citation for every airline–destination pair, when each pair is trivially verifiable against the same handful of airline and airport operator pages, edges into WP:CITEKILL territory. Dozens of footnotes pointing back to the same primary sources don't add verifiability — readers can't meaningfully distinguish between them, and the references section becomes harder to use, not easier. A consolidated approach would actually serve readers better than per-row citations to the same URLs.

Would you be open to restoring the major established entries on that basis? Lnn823 (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not going to read that WP:WALLOFTEXT unless you have a TL;DR. Suffice it to say this has been discussed multiple times at great length at multiple venues, including ANI - removing unsourced content is perfectly legitimate under the provisions of WP:V, and is justified because the content has been here for many years and nobody has been making efforts to source it. My end goal is not to permanently remove this stuff - but for it to be added back with reliable sources. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 06:58, 8 May 2026 (UTC)