" 
 ::I was fully aware of WP:V but I also found that the WSJ article is from WP:NEWSBLOG which may be acceptable if the author is professional, but should be used with caution. Here I want to cite two news articles in Chinese: China Economic Net's news article, which was republished by Xinhua, Sina and many other websites (Chinese media have legal right and like to simply copy and republish news articles written by other media), compares the price of Asiana Airlines' connecting flight with the price of China Eastern Airlines' non-stop flight like the WSJ blog author, and suggests that the low price is the main factor. But it is very disputed in Chinese forums and microblogs, because by consulting online flight booking websites, in most cases, one may easily find flights cheaper than Asiana Airlines'. That was what Yangcheng Evening News' journalist did. According to this news article, on Shanghai-based travel agency Ctrip's website, the journalist found an Air China's flight with one stop cheaper than Asiana Airlines'. In this news article, some experts agree that Asiana Airlines' tickets are mostly cheap but not always, ""a responsible person of a large flight ticket agency website"" claimed that Chinese flights might be more expensive than non-Chinese ones several years ago, but not now; connecting flights may be always cheaper than non-stop flights; Chinese airliners operate both non-stop flights and connecting flights, and people should always compare non-stop flights with non-stop flights, or connecting flights with connecting flights (which is exactly the opposite of what WSJ blog author and the China Economic Net author did). According to the news article, other factors that may make Asiana Airlines more competitive than Chinese or other airlines, include quality of service, airline brand influence, country's visa-free policy, and even psychological factors (Chinese may want to take foreign airlines' flight to have a different experience). However, I find it not necessary to analyze those complex things and dig it too deep in an article named ""Asiana Airlines Flight 214"", not ""Airlines' marketing strategy towards Chinese passengers"", ""Aviation market share in China"" or something. The current revision of the article is just fine, why insist on adding all those debates in it?   "