Talk:Flydubai

Destinations

First of all I know you used to edit under the username Joey Boeing 777, secondly the listing style you are promoting is not suited to a main article as its looks only good in a seprate destinations page, the style I'm promoting looks better for main article listed destinations and as the list of places and regions grows, it will look more organised compared to the other style.116.71.54.240 (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, for starters, im only going to be kind once... Joey Boeing 777 has nothing todo with me so zip it! and secondly, how does it look better? It does not... It just says for example 'North Africa' and then 'Cairo' no country name, so that supports why I believe it is rubbish, thats why I put in the other way of presenting which was agreed on, but yet you decided to change it... So wait for other comments before reverting back to YOUR standards! Comments welcome! Zaps93 (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont think if Zaps93 was another user it is really relevant to this article, we should assume good faith. I have suggested on my talk page that perhaps rather than reverting each other that it might be worth agreeing some standards for destinations at the Airline project and then work together to improve the encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank You MilborneOne, but I can re-assure you that Joey Boeing 777 has nothing todo with me, and could you please link exact place to put my idea's for destinations pages? Regards, Zaps93 (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/Destinations MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Zaps93 you are Joey Boeing 777, there is absolutely no doubt about that, howcome Joey Boeing 777 suddenly stops maintaining Iraqi Airways and other airline articles he so stubbornly hounded, then you pop in and you start editing the Iraqi Airways article in exactly the same manner that he used to do it, complete with defensive edit summaries, showing the same stubborn traits that he had, like posting flags and reverting the edits when they are removed. I agree with Miliborne though that this needs to be discussed at the project page.116.71.54.240 (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

WHAT?! Im fed up now! Im not going to say anymore!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have nothing todo with Joey Boeing 777, stop complaining about it as you have been proven wrong! Yes I edit Iraqi Airways but that has nothing todo with him/her stopping! so quit making false accusations!

Obviously you wont admit it.116.71.54.240 (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate if you only comment on the article and not other editors (which could be considered harrasment), if you have any particularly allegation against Zaps93 then this is not the place. MilborneOne (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the current formating of the destinations is good, I will be ok to leave with that. Regards. Zaps93 (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Service to Ras al Khaimah?

I was looking at the departures board on Dubai International Airports website and it states;

flydubai Flight FZ995 - Ras al Khaimah - 11:00am departure time.

So the question is, do they fly to Ras al Khaimah as well as Beirut? Zaps93 (talk) 07:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

bold text for country names

Looks unappealing and decorative, why are people editing airline articles so facsinated with decorating them? this is an encyclopedia, ideally destinations should only be listed by city names, in their respective regions at the most e.g:

• East Asia: Beijing, Pyongyang, Shanghai, Tokyo
• SouthWest Asia: Dubai, Muscat
• Europe: Brussels, Milan, Rome, Tirana, Zurich
• North Amewrica: New York, Washington

Thats about it, this is only for main article based destinations that only have a few places, extensive lists can have their own seprate page..116.71.48.249 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC).

That is where you are wrong, it should remain clear like as though it was on it's own seperate page, bold text shows the country clearly help scan out a country and then again. Also it has been discussed about destinations and just listing cities and that was ignored due to the fact it is a stupid information as it doesn't state the country flown to or the airport. Zaps93 (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Arabic name

مؤسسة دبي للطيران

Is the selectable name (it's different to select the name in the article itself) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Link to Emirates

FlyDubai and Emirates have the same chairman. I do not have facts on the ownership but it is believed that the chairman is also a large shareholder. The article should indicate this link more clearly. Proposal: "FlyDubai is not part of the Emirates group but has the same chairman." Zugerbueb (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

None notable near-miss

I have challenged the addition of a non-notable near miss by User:PilotJaguar1996 to the incidents and accidents sections, reference clearly says the EGWPS system worked correctly and as this is not that uncommon scenario and as the reference says "Both planes continued their journeys without incident." it is clearly not notable and should not be included. User:PilotJaguar1996 you need to gain consensus to add this as it has been challenged, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: , I will not be adding this again because I reread the article and realized that it was a mistake of adding it again after the second time. So I believe there is no need to "challenge the addition". Please carry on with your own business. --PilotJaguar1996 (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flydubai. 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/20131012045022/http://www.7daysindubai.com/flydubai-announces-addition-new-business-class/story-19329118-detail/story.html to http://www.7daysindubai.com/flydubai-announces-addition-new-business-class/story-19329118-detail/story.html

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) 00:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

September 2026 incident

This incident is the subject of a draft article Draft:Flydubai Flight 1073. For now it doesn't belong in this article per both WP:NOTNEWS and WP:AIRCRASH. Nobody was killed or injured. No damaged was sustained by the aircraft. It is as yet unclear whether this will having any lasting impact on the news / on the airline / or on the aviation industry. As we say in the UK, today's newspapers are tomorrow's fish & chip wrapping. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:06, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I see that @Veggies has reinstated the incident in the article. I'm not going to get into an edit war but I do think that it is wrong. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

@10mmsocket: As I said on your talk page: how was "nobody injured" when a pilot was stabbed? -- Veggies (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely bizzare and condescending reasoning. The most reliable mainstream sources are detailing one pilot attacking another which is extraordinarly rare. No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Then it sounds like it absolutely belongs on, first: its own article, and, second: mentioned here under accidents and incidents. -- Veggies (talk) 13:41, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

What part of ONUS is unclear, @Veggies? It is your responsibility as the editor(s) wishing to include content to get consensus for the inclusion of said content. As of right now there’s an ongoing discussion about its inclusion - far from a consensus, indeed very much still in dispute. Stop restoring the disputed content until there is consensus for inclusion. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:07, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

@Danners430: You're misusing or deliberately misreading ONUS. ONUS is not a reason for removal. You have only just now articulated your thoughts here and, frankly, your reasoning is dubious. This is a major incident and it deserves both its own article per GNG and to be mentioned very briefly here under the accidents and incidents section. Even your reasoning is false. The incident did involve major damage to the aircraft. Thus, per WP:AIRCRASH, it qualifies for a mention (at the very least) and a stand-alone article per GNG. I don't know how clearer I can make it for you. -- Veggies (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

My reason for removal is that this incident isn’t noteworthy if inclusion - as I stated before I even edited the article the first time. It is not my fault if you fail to read the existing discussion before reverting, which in itself is concerning behaviour. ONUS comes into play when content is challenged for whatever reason - you must get consensus for inclusion, something you have failed to do. As for major damage - where exactly is this coming from, as none of the sources you included in the article make such statements.

As for the standalone article - that is outside the scope of this discussion, which is about inclusion on this page. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:20, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

you must get consensus for inclusion Only when content is disputed. So far, the only people opposed to including this here is you based on completely incorrect reasoning (as I've already pointed out) and 10mmsocket, who went gone radio silent when I also pointed out that he was completely factually wrong in his reasoning. But, sure, we can keep discussing here how you're mistaken. Doesn't bother me at all. -- Veggies (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Only when it’s disputed……… that’s quite literally what has happened when 10mmsocket first reverted the addition. It doesn’t matter whether you believe the reasoning is correct or incorrect - that is your opinion. There is no consensus for inclusion. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:28, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

"There is no consensus! There is no consensus!" he said, convincingly, as more and more people consensually pointed out why he was wrong. -- Veggies (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Your tone is beginning to get rather worrisome. As of right now, two editors are arguing for inclusion and two are arguing for exclusion. There is no consensus - it is as simple as that. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:32, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:AIRCRASH exists for a reason - just because something is being reported on in the news doesn't mean it's worthy of an article (which this discussion is not about) or a mention in an article (which is what the discussion is about). That is literally what WP:NOTNEWS is about - we don't add stuff to articles just because news outlets are parroting it. Nobody died, no aircraft were substantially damaged or written off, and as of right now no procedures or regulations have been amended as a result of this incident. It doesn't belong. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:08, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Initial reports might have suggested a minor incident, but we now know that at least one person was seriously injured and that the rudder of the aircraft was seriously damaged. As things stand, I think this is sufficiently noteworthy to be included. We can always reconsider once we have clearer information about what happened. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

You’ve got this the wrong way round - I agree that as of right now this is a minor incident. So until that changes, it doesn’t belong here. Suggesting that we include until more information is available flies right in the face of WP:NOTNEWS. If new facts come to light and the incident does turn out to be more noteworthy then we add it then - not speculatively before said information is available. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:16, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh come on! It might have looked minor in the very first reports, but a stabbed pilot and a seriously damaged rudder clearly meets the AIRCRASH criteria. And, pragmatically, people are going to keep re-inserting this for as long as the initial news cycle lasts – just let it be for now and reassess later! Rosbif73 (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

The only mention of damage to the aircraft doesn’t use substantial, serious or any other such adjective - it simply says damage. Sorry but I fundamentally disagree with your approach here - we don’t speculatively add content in the expectation that it might become noteworthy later. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:30, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Aviation Safety Network uses the word "substantial" and photos show a significant portion of the rudder missing. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

As has been round the circuit numerous times, the ASN Wikibase isn’t a reliable source. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:36, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but we're only talking about giving the mention of the accident the benefit of the doubt, as it were, until more reliable sources emerge. ASN's "substantial" is enough for that purpose, and while analysing the photos would be WP:OR it seems pretty obvious we're not looking at mere minor damage. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Again, you appear to be approaching this back to front - we don't add content while we wait for reliable sources to make a certain statement… we wait until the reliable sources are there, then add the content. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:59, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

What precisely do you think reliable sources should say before you agree that this warrants mentioning on here? You move the goalposts every time it's pointed out that your prerequisites have been met (cf. WP:AIRCRASH --> qualifies --> "no it has to say the adjectives I want!"). What is it you expect to see? -- Veggies (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:AIRCRASH states, quite clearly, The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport. This has been the case for years. No goalposts are being moved - the incident doesn’t satisfy AIRCRASH because no source as yet says anything about serious (or another similar adjective) damage - the sources so far only say there is damage. The other two criteria are loss of life or change in procedure - and neither of those are true.

So tell us, how is AIRCRASH met? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:35, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

So, to clarify, your hangup here is based on the adjective preceding the account of damage? You're looking for an RS that says that the aircraft was damaged with an adjectival synonym for "serious"? Yes? -- Veggies (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

There is a large difference between simple damage, which can mean anything from a scraped paint job to a hull loss because it’s so broad a definition, to specifying that the damage is “serious” or “severe”. For the second time - there’s a reason AIRCRASH is written the way it is, and as of right now I can’t find a single reliable source that labels the damage as serious.

If the incident doesn’t meet AIRCRASH, then as I have said from the very beginning of this discussion then this shouldn’t be in the article. And as AIRCRASH itself makes abundantly clear, it doesn’t have any influence over standalone articles - I don’t care whether the standalone article exists or not… it doesn’t influence whether it gets mentioned here. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:48, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I guess I'll take that as a "yes". You're waiting for a RS to use the adjective "serious" or some related synonym. Fine. But AIRCRASH has more criteria. The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry. Flydubai has suspended all air traffic to Israel as a response to the incident. -- Veggies (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I know there are other criteria - I discussed them above. Suspending air traffic to Israel is a political response - it's not a change to aviation processes or regulations. Changes to aviation processes or regulations are changes to rules, for example requiring cockpit doors to be locked following 9/11. An airline stopping flying somewhere due to an incident is different. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:09, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Suspending air traffic to Israel is a political response It is literally "changes to procedures ... affecting airports" and this airline. There is nothing in AIRCRASH (which has been the standard that you have held to) that says "but it can't be political". I'm really starting to think your opposition is getting into disruptive POINTy-ness. -- Veggies (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry but how is it a change in procedure? Suspending flights to a region due to safety concerns is a decision made by an airline in light of what's happened. Airlines choosing to withdraw from Israel, Dubai or Iran due to unrelated conflicts are also not procedural changes - they are network changes. A change to procedure is when the procedures staff follow are altered. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:18, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

"We can always reconsider once we have clearer information about what happened." is a good approach to possible reinstatement of the content should it become notable enough. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

What's your criteria for "becoming notable enough" to mention here? -- Veggies (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:AIRCRASH and WP:GNG. Let's have a guess which one supersedes which. -- Veggies (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

GNG has absolutely nothing to do with the inclusion of content inside a page. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:21, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

My guy: if it passes GNG, it's notable enough for Wikipedia. The only reason you've given for not including it here in a sentence or two is WP:AIRCRASH—which I've already showed you also qualifies. -- Veggies (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn’t an argument. Just because someone decided to write an article on something doesn’t force it to be included in other articles. That argument is null and void. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:31, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Also kindly cut the condescending tone. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:31, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Cut the condescending tone? Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 19:13, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I stand by it - and it appears the other editor, to their credit, took it on board. So the matter would appear closed. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:18, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

And you decided to reply to me with yet more condescension. Do as I say, not as I do... Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 19:20, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

If that was condescending, then I apologise because I didn't write it as such. I'm not sure why you're inserting yourself here though, given I've just told you that the issue was resolved...? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:21, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:POTKETTLE Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 19:26, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Neither does WP:AIRCRASH, as you've been previously informed... Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 19:10, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

It is an essay - and editors are perfectly entitled to use it as a baseline for what they believe should or should not be included in articles. There are editors in this discussion who believe this content does belong in the article, and there are editors, including myself, who believe it should not. I can't speak for other editors, but I use AIRCRASH as the basis for what I believe should be added - and I am perfectly entitled to do so. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:19, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

You are permitted to use it as a baseline, yes, but you are not permitted to use it as justification or an argument for excluding specific content from an article. Nobody is required to adhere to it, and it does not take any precedence whatsoever over anyone else's viewpoints or arguments. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 19:22, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I am allowed to use it as a reason for content removal the same way as any other editor is allowed to remove content they believe doesn't belong in an article. Provided an editor has a justification for removal of content, removal is permitted and if necessary should be discussed. Because I happen to use an essay as the basis of my justification doesn't make my justification any less valid than other editors' justifications for inclusion. If you have a problem with that, then take it to ANI or another noticeboard. I am not changing my viewpoint. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:27, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Having reviewed the discussion and the current article wording, I support retaining a concise mention of the incident. The initial assertion that nobody was injured was factually incorrect, and WP:AIRCRASH is an essay rather than a binding exclusion criterion. An in-flight attack on a pilot followed by an emergency diversion and investigation is sufficiently relevant to the airline’s accident and incident history. The current one-sentence entry is proportionate and avoids speculation about motive or responsibility. Shencypeter (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

You say this, then you immediately set about expanding it into a full paragraph... and injury isn't a criterion in AIRCRASH - fatality is, and there have been zero fatalities. Quite simply, this content does not belong in this article as it is simply not noteworthy. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:52, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Agree that the paragraph should be kept short – but disagree that it is not noteworthy. Firstly, the intent of AIRCRASH is essentially to exclude run-of-the-mill incidents (tail strikes, runway excursions and the like). If this had been run-of-the-mill, I'd be the first to be backing your position. Secondly, I think it does meet the AIRCRASH criteria, there are now multiple reliable sources referring to "significant" or "substantial" damage. And thirdly, AIRCRASH is just a guideline and even if an incident doesn't meet the letter of the criteria, it can still be noteworthy for other reasons. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

AIRCRASH isn't a guideline - it's an essay, setting out criteria that are generally accepted but not binding. As I said earlier, I choose to make the essay the basis of my personal opinion on what should be and what shouldn't be included.

What you're saying with new sources coming to light stating substantial/serious etc. damage is exactly why these sort of incidents should not be added instantly, as you have been championing - they should be kept back until such time as those sources become available, then the content should be added. Had we waited until the sources were available, there wouldn't be an argument, there wouldn't be edit wars, and there wouldn't be animosity. There is no deadline - we do not add content until it is ready to be added. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:38, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

If this had been a routine incident I'd totally agree with you. But it was blindingly obvious yesterday that it was far from run-of-the-mill, and was very clearly noteworthy even if the sourcing at the time didn't quite meet the letter of the guideline essay. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Let's be serious. The damage to the aircraft did not get worse overnight. You've acquiesced because you can't continue stomping your feet and demanding that everyone else ignore reality to satisfy your (and only your) goalpost-shifting criteria. It was self-evident after several hours post-flight that the incident was inherently notable. And inherently notable incidents can be mentioned in the accidents and incidents page of their respective airlines with proper sources, irrespective of whether they meet every jot and tittle of some Wikiproject essay. -- Veggies (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

If you're going to continue to be rude and assume bad faith, then this will end up at a noticeboard. Neither of us want that. I've already asked you to drop the condescending tone and I thought that had been the end of it - evidently not. Consider this a final warning.

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, backed up by reliable sources. Until today there were no reliable sources that verified it meeting WP:AIRCRASH, as has been evidenced - there were no fatalities, there was no verifiable process change (an airline suspending a route is not a process change, it's a route change), and until today there were no sources that said severe damage or hull loss. That was why I objected to the inclusion. I have told you multiple times that these were the criteria - I have not shifted any goalposts, I have explained why the criteria matter and what they are. Given the matter is closed, I suggest you stop digging a hole in terms of your conduct and let the matter lie. (Yes, I saw your edit summary when you removed the edit warring warning - a seeming cavalier attitude to edit warring is just as concerning).

Finally - something being notable (ie satisfying GNG) does not, and never has, guaranteed its inclusion in other articles. As I have told you numerous times, it is the responsibility of the editor(s) wishing to include that content in the article to seek consensus should the inclusion be challenged. That is what WP:ONUS sets out, and it is policy. You had no consensus until no, so it was your responsibility to gain consensus, something you didn't do. I'm saying this in the hope that perhaps the next time you have disputed content you might actually follow policy instead of edit warring disputed content into an article. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:27, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Until today there were no reliable sources that verified it meeting WP:AIRCRASH Yes there were. I provided them yesterday. there was no verifiable process change Yes there was. I showed you that yesterday. an airline suspending a route is not a process change, it's a route change They didn't suspend a "route". They suspended all traffic in and out of a country for multiple days in response to this incident. That is absolutely a change to procedure affecting an airline and airports (i.e. verbatim what that essay requests). I hope that's clear now. -- Veggies (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

We've already gone through this in great detail… the sources you provided yesterday said nothing of serious damage, only that there was damage. And for the umpteenth time… a route suspension is not process change. It is not a change in procedure. It is an airline choosing to suspend a route. So no, until today it did not meet the criteria. It's pointless litigating back and forth over something that was discussed yesterday… Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:41, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

The threshold does not need to be lower; it needs to measure the right thing. A section titled “Accidents and incidents” records significant occurrences involving the aircraft type; it is not limited to defects ultimately attributed to the manufacturer (implicating a fleet wide modification)

WP:AIRCRASH expressly identifies serious damage to the aircraft or airport as supporting inclusion. It does not require a fatality, hull loss, type-wide design defect, or proof that Boeing was responsible. Requiring evidence of a Boeing defect would therefore replace the stated inclusion criteria with a substantially narrower causation test.Shencypeter (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• A reminder to all editors involved here that insofar as the Flight 1073 incident relates to a possible terrorist attack targeting Israel, content discussing it is part of WP:PIA and thus WP:1RR applies. I'm not going to block anyone for edit warring prior to this notice, but do be mindful of 1RR going forward. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:29, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

References

Edit Request: Update Flydubai Flight 1073 details under Accidents and incidents

Removed own comment / withdrawing edit request

Please update the bullet point regarding Flydubai Flight 1073 under the "Accidents and incidents" section.

Please replace the current text with:

• On 30 September 2026, Flydubai Flight 1073, a Boeing 737 MAX 8 registered A6-FKF operating from Dubai to Tel Aviv carrying 174 passengers—including approximately 160 Israeli citizens—was subjected to an attempted hijacking and suicide attack over Saudi Arabia. The Omani first officer, Humam al-Humami, attacked Indian captain Smit Machchhar with a cockpit emergency crash axe and forced the controls forward, causing the airliner to plunge over 14,000 ft (4,300 m) in under 30 seconds. Despite sustaining severe wounds, Captain Machchhar fought back and managed to unlock the fortified cockpit door before collapsing. Alerted by distress cries, Israeli passenger Yaniv Hayoun stormed the flight deck, placed al-Humami in a chokehold, and pulled him away from the controls. Other Israeli passengers then pinned al-Humami to the floor and bound him with media charging cables, while Hayoun pulled back on the yoke to arrest the dive. Two off-duty Flydubai pilots traveling as passengers then entered the flight deck, assumed control of the damaged aircraft, and made an emergency landing at Tabuk, Saudi Arabia. The aircraft sustained structural damage to the rudder. Captain Machchhar underwent emergency surgery for his injuries, al-Humami was arrested for attempted hijacking and terrorism, and all passengers evacuated safely. The incident occurred amid wider disruption to air travel between Israel and the Gulf during the Iran–Israel conflict, with Israeli airlines having suspended services to the UAE earlier in 2026 while flydubai continued operating the route.

References

 Not done: the existing text is already too long; anyone who wants to know the details can click through to read the Flight 1073 article. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:34, 5 October 2026 (UTC)