Template talk:Airport codes

Vs IATA
I just saw that this has been created. In the past, we've mostly just used IATA, but also have a template for ICAO. If I understand correctly, this template would allow either or both of these plus FAA LID, TC LID, and GPS to be displayed after an airport name. Do we want that? Or is this going to be overkill visually—should we just stick to plain old IATA? --Peter Talk 03:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think even ICAO codes are too useful to commercial flyers. It's helpful for the Paris-bound tourist to know they can type "CDG" into an airline booking engine, but very few customer-facing operations that I know of would show or accept the corresponding (and thoroughly unintuitive) ICAO code of "LFPG", much less the even more technical codes.  I'd prefer to encourage the use of only IATA codes when possible, while listing ICAO codes for small general aviation airports that don't have IATA codes, and probably to take ICAO out of Template:Airport skeleton.  -- D. Guillaume (talk) 04:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. Visual overkill and not needed - except for the GPS codes part which should be incorporated into IATA --90.215.245.164 07:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed that ICAO should probably only be used where IATA is not available; the other codes are not useful. I don't know much about GPS codes.  LtPowers (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think a strict rule to only use ICAO when IATA is not available, most of the airports around here that don't see a scheduled commercial services are better known by the ICAO codes - even though many have an IATA code assigned. --Inas (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that ICAO should only be used when IATA is not available. I've used FAA LID in several articles where the only airport in town had no commercial service and not IATA code. Example: Polk City. AHeneen (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)