Talk:Phuket International Airport

Untitled

• I read in the news that 20 airlines used to serve the airport before the 2004 tsunami struck, but currently only eight do. Does anyone have the knowledge to update the list? Jendeyoung 02:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Protect from Vandalism

I think that this article should be protected due recent acts of Vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.198.91.173 (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Destinations section needs a clean-up

Somebody please clean up the destinations section, lots of irrelevant stuff there. 223.207.71.133 (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Clean-up

Somebody please do the clean-up! This is the most inaccurate airport article in Wiki! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.5.7.65 (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chiang Mai International Airport which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Sources modified on Phuket International Airport

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just attempted to maintain the sources on Phuket International Airport. I managed to add archive links to 2 sources, out of the total 2 I modified, whiling tagging 0 as dead.

Please take a moment to review my changes to verify that the change is accurate and correct. If it isn't, please modify it accordingly and if necessary tag that source with {{cbignore}} to keep Cyberbot from modifying it any further. Alternatively, you can also add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page's sources altogether. Let other users know that you have reviewed my edit by leaving a comment on this post.

Below, I have included a list of modifications I've made:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111228055943/http://www.airportthai.co.th:80/th/irweb/thai/investor_th.html to http://www.airportthai.co.th/th/irweb/thai/investor_th.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131016091535/http://www.airportthai.co.th/ewtadmin85_aot/ewt/aot_web/download/about_us/Statistics_report_2012.pdf to http://www.airportthai.co.th/ewtadmin85_aot/ewt/aot_web/download/about_us/Statistics_report_2012.pdf

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Incidents and Accodents

Why have the incidents and accidents which have occurred since 16 / 09 / 2007 NOT been reported? 2403:6200:8871:9DB2:CF7:130A:3394:543F (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Non-notable incidents

Courtesy pinging @User:~2026-15362-00 and @Tkoalafiedkoala - there’s guidance at WP:AIRCRASH as to what constitutes a notable incident to include in the article. If we reported on every incident involving aircraft, the section would be longer than the article itself. The incident that occurred today didn’t result in fatalities, a hull loss or change in procedures - so it doesn’t meet those community-agree criteria. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:26, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

And another... @Ayaanpunit - that incident fails WP:AIRCRASH and, quite simply, isn't notable Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:58, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

okay understood, I apologize for my mistake there. Shouldn't happen again...I apologize again. Ayaanpunit (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Don't worry - if you don't know something you don't know it, that's not your fault :-) We all start somewhere on Wikipedia, even I did way back when! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:03, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport suffered nose-gear damage during hard landing at Phuket, causing runway closure for more than 6 hours. Harmalhotra27 (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

This is the third time you've stated this - which source states "serious damage"? It lost a wheel and suffered nose wheel damage, that is not serious damage. And a 6 hour closure of the runway isn't a criteria in establishing notability - indeed, it's quite a short closure considering. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:37, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Would the loss of a nose landing gear and the aircraft sliding along the runway not be considered significant damage? Harmalhotra27 (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I do not mean to cross your point in any way Danner but: multiple sources report that the aircraft lost both nose landing gear wheels and the main gear strut was left exposed and dragged along the centerline till the aircraft came to rest. This could've resulted in significant structural damage. This left the aircraft disabled on the runway and requiring removal and inspection of the runway. Given the extent of landing gear damage and the operational impact at Phuket, I believed it could meet the “substantial damage” criterion.

I understand that this incident has just occurred today and that the sources we're going off of are news articles and verified videos...waiting for say 24-48 hours would allow for more facts to come out and then come back to this topic to further discuss this issue. Ayaanpunit (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

There's a key word in your statement there - could have resulted in significant structural damage. But it didn't, which is the key point. A runway incursion could have resulted in a massive accident, but it usually doesn't. It would not surprise me at all if the damage that did occur can be relatively easily repaired and the aircraft back in service in a few days or a week - serious damage would be the aircraft being stuck for significant repairs, close to but not indeed a hull loss.

If it does turn out in subsequent news that the damage is indeed serious to the point of significant repairs being required then of course we can add it then. But after all - WP:There is no deadline Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:10, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

You're right, best to wait for the final results then.

I was going off of the fact that the aircraft's nose gear strut dragged along the runway surface, which could in major structural damage...

[https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/12021310] - Shows the strut making direct contact with/ the runway.

If it's okay I'll remove the section related to AIX938 from the page. If further reports indicate more structural damage (which is quite probable) we could add it back. Ayaanpunit (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@Fahad320 please note the above discussion regarding this incident Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:17, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@Fahad320 please stop edit warring and join the discussion. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:10, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Also @Gurkubondinn just FYI :) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:18, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Nose gear failures are interesting incidents (especially since they tend to come down to pilot skill and have pretty high survivability rates), but the edit that I reverted earlier didn't sit right with me. We shouldn't be using sources like WP:TIMESOFINDIA for something like this, given their bad reputation for poor fact checking. If there is consensus for inclusion, we should just wait for an actual RS to write something about the incident. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh I don't disagree - I'm just letting you know that the discussion is going on :) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:27, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I was unaware of this discussion so thanks for the ping! Mostly I just wanted to say that I find nose gear incidents interesting, apropos nothing at all. Did not mean to imply that I disagree with you or anything. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Sigh... it's whackamole. @Harmalhotra27 please see this discussion. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:36, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Scratch that - you're already here... apologies for the double ping! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:38, 11 March 2026 (UTC)