GateHold

This week, my latest Ask the Pilot column takes on the mangling of airline names...

Everybody messes up airline names. They spell them wrong, say them wrong, add letters and breaks and apostrophes where none belong, and so on. In the aftermath of the MH370 and MH17 incidents, for instance, we've had one mangling after another of the Malaysia Airlines name. No, it's not that important, and I've eased up on correcting people, but there are times when you just can't let it go. I was startled the other day to come across a slip up in, of all places, The New Yorker. There are fewer if any more impeccably edited and fact-checked periodicals, but there it is, in an essay by George Packer on page 85 of the August 11th issue. Packer makes a reference to "Malaysian Air" flight 17.

George! Of all people!

The name of the company is Malaysia Airlines. It's not "Malaysian Airlines," "Malaysia Air," or "Air Malaysia." And it's certainly not the doubly wrong "Malaysian Air."

What is it, anyway, with the shortening of the words "Airlines" or "Airways" into "Air"? "British Air," "Singapore Air," "Virgin Air," "Malaysia(n) Air." Is it unfamiliarity with certain airlines from overseas? We don't say "American Air" or "United Air." I realize that it's fewer syllables, but it's ugly-sounding and wrong.

As maybe you've heard, Malaysia Airlines is considering a name change -- not terribly surprising after two notorious tragedies in less than a year. This doesn't shock me, but it does concerns me for a couple of reasons. First, is it really necessary? People are squeamish, but the bulk of travelers aren't irrational enough to avoid a particular airline because it happened to be tragically unlucky. If the carrier wants to prove itself proud and resilient, it needs to think long term and should keep its identity intact. Second, Malaysia Airlines is such a classy and dignified name. It should stay that way. If not, and if the current trend in airline branding is any indication, we're liable to end up with something truly awful, like "Jet Fun Asia" or "Malay Sunshine Fly."

Airline malapropisms aren't limited to the media or to industry outsiders. People I work with, many of them long-time veterans of the airline business, will sometimes speak of "Air Italia," and I've encountered just about every possible variant of the pronunciation and spelling of the name Lufthansa, from the crudely phonetic (“Liftunza”) to the inexplicable (“Lefthoonza.”)

Menanwhile, if you haven’t noticed, the global expansion of commercial aviation has brought with it some truly awful carrier names. In the past few years, more than 250 commercial operators have entered the market, the bulk of them with identities ranging from inexplicable to embarrassing. Many, apparently, were thought up by twelve year-old girls (Golden International Airlines, Butterfly Helicopters), or junior high kids strung out on energy drinks (Maximus Air Cargo, Mega Aircompany).

Particularly noxious has been the fondness for ultra-quirky, dare I say “fun” monikers. Zoom, Jazz, Clickair, Go Fly, Wizz Air. Enough already. Sure, it freshens things up, but can you really buy a ticket on something called “BMIbaby” and still feel good about yourself in the morning?


The full discussion of this topic is here...

http://www.askthepilot.com/the-name-game/

The longer post includes a "style sheet" with a long list of the most common carrier name gaffes.

Give it a read, enjoy, and let us know below what some of * your * favorite mangled airline names might be. FlyerTalk visitors are among the most savvy travelers out there, but even here, on occasion, I see references to "American Air" and the like.


Patrick Smith

CPRich

Actually, USAir is quite often used for USAirways. "American", Delta", "United" are extremely common - probably more common than the full name.

Tchiowa

I say "United Air" all the time. If it's obvious the topic is airlines, I just say "United" or "American".

The purpose of language is to convey an idea or message from one person to another. If someone said "Malaysian Air" and we all know what he meant, then he has communicated properly and only someone with OCD would care.

Seat 2A

Pan Am was used so much in place of the more proper Pan American or to be absolutely correct - Pan American World Airways - that the airline went ahead and incorporated "Pan Am" as the title on its aircraft livery. What I'm not so sure about is whether the airline ever went and officially changed it's name to Pan Am. I'm thinking it didn't...

Remember Canadian Pacific Airlines? It went and changed it's name to CP Air.

Here are a few names I thought did little to inspire a sense of dignified air transport...

Access Air
Air 21
Big Apple Airlines
Conquest Sun Airlines (Became AirTran)
Go! (or Go! Mokulele)
Leisure Air
MAXjet
MetroJet
Skybus Airlines
SkyTrain
Song
ValuJet

davedeboston

Agreed. If you were picking up a buddy from the airport and they said they were arriving on US Air flight 123, I'm pretty sure you'd know when and what terminal to get them.

relangford

I liked the old "USAir" name. It was clever ("USA") and descriptive. The US Airways isn't as good (of course, it is soon to be gone, too).
or, Luftwaffe .I don't know about the former airline (or air line), but the spin-off Pam Am World Services does use the "Pan Am".

MSPeconomist

The one that annoys me is Scoot, the low cost affiliate of Singapore Airlines.

Another (former) one for your list is Ted, the LCC leisure carrier of UA or United. (get it?)

YYZC2

Me too! I thought I was the only one.

I get that they are trying to be light-hearted but to me it just sounds infantile.

beachmouse

Which was actually successful at rebranding itself as AirTran as it tried to distance itself from the Flight 592 disaster.

IceTrojan

FYI AA's official Twitter handle is @AmericanAir

Giggleswick

I always refer to KLM as Koninlijk Luchtvaart Maatschaapij. Doesn't everyone?

Too much travel

The one which annoys me is when folks confuse Air China with China Airlines: two entirely different organisations from two very different countries.*

(*Okay, if you're a hardline CCP or KMT person, then technically two very different manifestations of the same country but - to every other practically-minded person in the world - de facto two different countries)

exilencfc

Oh sod it i've just submitted an article referring to Malaysian Airlines. #fail

LondonElite

I'm with you to a point.

No one can be expected to refer to an airline by its legal, registered name (viz the KLM example above). But people should avoid non-customary references as well (for example, in the US people generally refer to 'United' or 'American', rather than 'American Airlines', whereas no one in Europe would refer to BA as 'British', opting instead for 'British Airways'. A cultural curiosity perhaps (which also applies in reverse.) English is an evolving language, and this is how it is evolving. But I'm with you that the unthinking references to 'Air Malaysia' or 'Lufthansa Airways' is just irritating (in a non-OCD way.)

Cheetah_SA

Just wander over to the BA board of FT and refer to the airline as British Air or (heaven forfend!) Brit Air. The wailing, gnashing of teeth and paroxysms of disgust are quite breathtaking.

And of course no one will let the opportunity pass to correct you if you ever type such an unforgivable solecism as "Quantas".