Contents 1 Will Charles Widmore stage this flight crash? 2 On Documenting the survivors.... 3 Flight Time 4 Seating 5 Plane Details 6 Did that flight actually crash? 7 Numbers 8 Which tense should be used? 9 Injured passengers 10 Which Boeing 737 type? 11 Co-pilot 12 Rename 13 Time traveling plane? 14 January 21, 2008 15 Wouldn't Aaron have to go back with them? 16 Why...? 17 why didn't they leave right away? 18 December 28, 2007

Will Charles Widmore stage this flight crash? Edit

• Will charles Widmore stage this crash, as to distract people from finding the island again? It will be very interesting indeed, perhaps rescuers will find the island this time--Nzoomed 20:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

On Documenting the survivors.... Edit

Im probably a week ahead of things, but we're going to parallel Flight 815 with regard to how we document this flight and put things like why Caesar was on the flight on his page, right? --  SacValleyDweller    talk    contribs   05:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Probably. I'm assuming him and Ilana survive the crash or whatever event occurs since aren't they new S5 cast members? And they're both 1st class along with the O6. Maybe the back section with the rest of the redshirt passengers breaks off similar to the tail section. We'll have to wait and see.--Mistertrouble189 22:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think we should split the "On The Plane..." catagory that appears in character boxes into 2 optional catagories. Since recent episodes have been revealing peoples reasons for being on 316, there should be "On 815...." and "On 316..." catagories. For example, Michael's character box would only have the "On 815..." catagory, and Ben would only have "On 316....". However Sun would have both. Also, I think we should make the survivors of Flight 316 it's own catagory of characters, like The Others, DHARMA, Frieghties, all them. --Nintendo_Warrior 04:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Flight Time Edit

As Shown on the Ajira Airways site isn't this flight ment to occur on 2nd Feb 2009, not sometime during 2008. --Cerberus1838 13:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

SeatingEdit

Where did these seatings come from? They don't seem to correspond with the web-site.--Mc peko 20:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Plane Details Edit

The producers obviously wanted us to see the details of the plane very specifically as there were several close-ups as it took off and was flying. The plane was a Boeing Next Generation 737-700, Registration number N25705 (it's a 737-724 actually). It was delivered on May 12th, 1998, 64th off the line from Renton via Wichita, serial number 28766. It was probably delivered without the winglets and retrofitted later. It's currently registered to I think Continental. I'm including all these numbers as numbers seem to play such a deep part of the story in Lost. The problem is that a 734 can't fly from HNL to GUM, it doesn't have the legs to legally fly that far (it has the reserves, but it can't meet the FAR requirements). By the time it got to Guam, it would only have enough fuel to fly another 269 NM, that's not enough under the regulations. I guess it really doesn't matter, as they didn't make it to Guam anyway... --Cthulhu667 00:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Did that flight actually crash? Edit

There is some text in this wiki saying things like "what happened after the crash" etc, but we don't know if this flight actually crashed like the 815 did. I don't think it did. Eugenia loli 04:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of brevity I think we should just assume it crashed. If that proves wrong later, then I don't think it's that big a deal.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  05:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. It is important if it crashed or not, because it would give us a clue as to what was supposed to happen for the 815 crash. Here's a theory http://theoriesonlost.blogspot.com/2009/02/desmond-destiny-crasher-by-eugenia-loli.html (not a spoiler, just a theory), that explains a lot, and bases its facts around the 316 crashing or not. So it's important to get it right. Eugenia loli 06:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's important, but for the sake of discussion I think it's easier to talk about the "crash" of 316 rather than the "mysterious light that enveloped 316 and removed 3 passengers and possibly more and possibly caused the plane to crash". I think it's enough, in articles and talk pages, if necessary to talk about the crash, and just have Unanswered Questions about whether the plane actually crashed or not.  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  06:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem with saying it crash landed is that that implies there is a crashed plane. From what we have seen the plane seems to be in good shape.

• Well, now we know that Flight 316 crashed haha.--Mistertrouble189 21:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Why? It appears to have come to rest near the possible runway built by Saywer, Kate and The Others, so it may have emergency landed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikeholczer (talk • contribs) .

I'm a pilot, and it seemed perfectly clear to me that after the flash while the pilots were maneuvering to avoid terrain, they spotted the hydra runway and chose to attempt a landing there. The media would refer to it as a crash, because they call everything a crash. Pilots would call it a runway excursion, specifically an overrun, because it went off the end of the runway. Because there was a fatality and injuries, it would be classed as an aircraft accident. -PolarBearSkull 02:36, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

NumbersEdit

I'd just like to throw out another crazy number theory, involving 316. 316 divided by 4 is 79. 7 and 9 just so happen to be the only numbers NOT in the sequence 4 8 15 16 23 42. Could it be referencing to the possibility that the Island doesn't want the passengers from Flight 316 that weren't on the Island before? Perhaps.. Romulan248 04:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC) That would make some sense.. Caesar=7 Ilana =9

Which tense should be used? Edit

I know that episode articles should use the present tense, but is this required for all articles? On articles of independent nature, like this one, it seems to me that using the past tense provides better perspective. Any thoughts on this, or maybe, a policy I've missed? —Iimitk 00:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

All articles are in past tense except episode articles, which are present tense (see LP:MOS and LP:EMOS). This article is not an episode though, so it should be in past tense. -- CTS  Talk   Contribs 00:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

There you go. I'm preparing a heavy rewrite of the article and thought I should check up before going on. Thanks. —Iimitk 00:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Note, however, that non-episode articles should be written from the perspective of the latest chronological event to have occurred; so while past tense is mostly used (for all the events that have happened), present tense should be used for ongoing conditions. So, "Flight 316 took off from L.A.", but "The plane is on Hydra Island." -- Graft   talk   contributions  01:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Injured passengers Edit

I'm pretty sure that I saw Rupa Krishnavani in the room with all of the injured survivors. It would make sense that she would be in there because she was being tossed around when the plane was crashing. Does anybody think that this is her? -- LostCloverfield42  Talk  21:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• In the episode, there are 4 visible injured survivors, one being Benjamin Linus. Another was a woman with an injured arm that sat in the middle section closest to the curtain in "316". Another injured passenger was a blonde woman clad in a reddish-pink blouse with a bandaged head. The last was some man that wasn't clearly visible. I don't think Rupa was one of th<em, I thought so at first, but don't think so (and hope not too!)--Mistertrouble189 22:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think that this woman is Rupa. When I watched the episode, is looked much more like her. We, might find out in later episodes if it is her or not.-- LostCloverfield42  Talk  00:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Never mind, it's not Rupa, I just watched that part again, and its not her. -- LostCloverfield42  Talk  00:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Pics of two of the injured (click to enlarge).--Mistertrouble189 22:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
• I got about 14 pics of background survivors that are pretty good and saw the unnamed female flight attendant. The large woman and the woman in the pink shirt (from above) are seen ok, but injured, on beach. Here is a brighter pic of the woman in pink. I'm making minis of the backgrounders for the table on my page so go see them if you want (they'll be ready sometime later).--Mistertrouble189 20:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Which Boeing 737 type? Edit

Could anyone with experience with airplane types tell us which type of the Boeing 737 the Flight 316 is? I'm trying to estimate the number of passengers who boarded the plane to a maximum proximity. Following the very informative article on Boeing 737 on Wikipedia, there are multiple types. Passengers known to us until now are the Ajira Five, Ben, Ilana, Caesar, Roxanne & two women, ie.e 11. So 11 + 78 (seats bought by Hurley) = 89. Subtracting this from the correct number of seats would gives us the remaining survivors. Not so important I know, but at least we're not like Ben, are we? ;-) —Iimitk 15:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The aircraft shown in the series is a Boeing 737-700 with winglets. The typical structure of the registration points to an aircraft used by Continental Airlines. They operate the similar aircraft with the registration N25705. As the makers of the Lost series rely on Microsoft Flight Simulator models, it very easy to change the paint on a usual Continental aircraft. Picture of this aircraft in reality can be viewed here:

B737-700 Continental - N25705

For further questions on 737 aircraft and Flight Simulator paints please visit my site at:

NEMESISCOM REPAINTS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nemesiscom (talk • contribs) 14:40, 9 April 2009.

Seat numbers on any particular flight depend not only on the aircraft type but on the configuration. Airlines can choose to put the seats closer together, thus getting more seats on board, or further apart, and advertise more leg room. WestJet seats 136 on a 73G, Southwest seems to hve more galleys, and only 131 seats, while Air China has three classes of service, so 128 seats. Ajira Airways had quite a large first class, so I would suggest not more than Air China. -PolarBearSkull 01:18, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Co-pilot Edit

Canonically he has no name-Jack Ross was used in casting, but hasn't been confirmed as of yet as the character's canon names (since false names are often used in casting). But I don't know how to non-awkwardly work him into a page without mentioning a name. --Golden Monkey 23:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Rename Edit

I'm suggesting renaming this article to Ajira Flight 316. Reasons:

• Shorter.
• Complying with the naming convention established by Oceanic Flight 815.
• The suggested name was used by Sayid in "He's Our You". Though this is debatable of course, since the name Ajira Airways Flight 316 was used by Ms. Hawking and Jacob. In the latter case, both were telling Jack & Hurley respectively about the flight for the first time, hence felt the need to tell the airliner's full name to avoid misinformation. — Iimitk  T  C  19:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
•  Jimbo the Tubby  talk  contributions  19:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• We don't say Oceanic Airways Flight 815. Ao-bōzu 青坊主 * Talk * Contributions

• No duh we don't call it that...it's Oceanic Airlines Flight 815 =P --Mistertrouble189 19:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• per consistency. --Orhan94 16:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• For reasons above. --Baker1000 23:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• for the logical reasons listed above - --Jblostfan174 02:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Time traveling plane? Edit

What evidence is there exactly to say the plane traveled back in time to 2007 rather than just crashing in their present? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheBlackRock (talk • contribs) 2009-05-24T14:58:10.

There was a time flash that took them from night to day--confirmed by Cuse is latest clip show.  Robert K S   tell me  22:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

But a flash from night to day doesn't confirm a time travel to 2007 unless also confirmed by Carlton? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sosaited (talk • contribs) 2009-05-26T01:20:32.

Yes, they confirmed that the on-Island "present" is 2007. Jeremy Bentham's passport is dated 2008, so that indicates a time leap from 2008 to 2007. Read the clip show transcript. Also, sign your messages with four tidles. See that big red message at the top when you go to edit a talk page?  Robert K S   tell me  06:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Just a minor correction, Bentham's passport is dated 12 Dec 2007. However, considering Jack has told Ben at the funeral parlor that Locke visited him about a month ago, that puts the conversation approximately at the second week of January 2008. The Ajira Airways website featured a flight from LA to Guam to be on 21st January 2009. So it's most probably that the actual date of Flight 316 was 21st January 2008, but since the website is supposed to feature flights in real-time, the year was set to 2009, instead of 2008. — Iimitk  T  C  07:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I hate to be nit-picky and am sure I'm new to the debate, but Lostpedia:Canon doesn't list the clip shows as canon, I imagine they're semi-canon at best. Is there anything in the show itself that says it was 2007 when the plane crashed? I can see Carlton saying 2007 to simplify the fact they use the 30 years earlier/later inter titles. Those could be rough guides as well. (or they could be to create all the confusion and speculation there is!) The time flash from night to day could have been only a couple of days or even hours as far as I can tell. Although I did think they were somewhen else when the numbers were being broadcast! Drinkybird 01:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

While clip-shows may not be cannon, I imagine anything Darlton says WOULD BE. -- Dhalia 16:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Drinkybird, you answered our own question "Is there anything in the show itself that says it was 2007 when the plane crashed?", by talking about the 30 years earlier/later screen shots. That is the evidence and D&C were confirming what it meant in the clip show. Granted, it's a little fishy with other info we've been given like Richard's comment in "Follow the Leader" about it being 3 years since he'd seen Locke, as well as Jacob talking to Hurley just before the departure of Ajira 316 (after being killed in 2007). But, if anything, Richard's comment should be the one considered an estimation not a blatant 30 years earlier/later screen shot that is then clarified by D&C as to what it means. While the clip show may be semi-cannon, D&C's words are not. There is most likely a continuity error somewhere in there. My bet is the error is on Locke's passport (which has never been confirmed by D&C) which is where we 1st got the idea the plane departed in 2008. Either way, the most concrete info of it all states that Ajira 316 arrived on the island in 2007. Until we are given concrete, cannonized evidence to the contrary, we have to go with that. - NEVERGIVEUP  Contribs  Talk  14:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The existence of a flight number on a particular date does not mean that it was the Ajira 316. Airlines use the same flight number for the equivalent flight day after day and week after week, even if they move them to a slightly different time. Airlines sometimes retire a flight number in the event of a crash generating a lot of publicity, and if they completely change the schedule they may renumber everything. So there were at least dozens and probably hundreds of flight 316s before the fateful one. -PolarBearSkull 00:40, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Last time John Locke met Richard was in 2005.

When Locke comes back, Richard says "it's been three years".

Let's calculate that... Yeah, 2008.

Adding the fact that your time traveling to several months just ruin the cliffhanger of the final (Jacob's survival or not), and that the "thirty years later" is not relevant at all, since hundreds of movies and tv shows, use this as temporal hint.

Like "3000 years later" "nowadays" "200 years later" ... Of course, it's never exact, it's just here to indicate where you are, they didn't put "present" because the present was the past for Jack Kate and the others... They wouldn't have put "thirty one years eleven hours fourty minutes and fifteen seconds later..." ... That would be dumb.

Like Richard said "it's been three years", it's just a time hint, that doesn't exactly make three years.

So, even though it has time traveled a bit (hours, days ?), I really don't think they are in 2007.

--Atarada 00:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

January 21, 2008 Edit

Where did this day come from for the day of the flight? --Crash815 Talk 05:08, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

• I just now came on here to ask that same question, and I see that no one has answered it. If anything, I definitely think it should be removed, because Damon and Carlton stated in a podcast that the off-island events in Season 5 take place in 2007. --Celebok 22:23, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, since no one responded, I went ahead and changed it. --Celebok 20:25, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

January 21, 2008 is back again. I will change it to December 2007, since that's what Bentham's passport said, and it makes more sense. --Dr. James (4 8 15 16 23 42) 16:42, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for catching this. However, I removed "December" because Bentham's passport is a production error and cannot be used in narrowing down the exact month. The reason I know this is because if Bentham's passport had been issued in December, then Ajira 316 had to have taken off in January 2008, because Jack says that Locke visted him "a month ago". (This is what led to the long-running debate about whether Ajira 316 took off in 2007 or 2008.) However, Damon and Carlton confirmed in a Season 5 DVD audio commentary that Ajira 316 took off in 2007. Therefore, the month shown on Bentham's passport has to be incorrect. --Celebok 20:08, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

• Excellent, thank you very much. --Dr. James (4 8 15 16 23 42) 02:16, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't Aaron have to go back with them? Edit

Eloise said that the flight must be as similar as possible as flight 815, right? well then in that case shouldn't Aaron have boarded the flight with the others, to make it even similar? it might just be me but i think that's a pretty big mistake? hmm.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ashhurley (talk • contribs) .

• That was a pretty big order that Claire gave Kate...hmm.- MRMIKE T  C  E  15:08, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
• Aaron didn't "board" flight 815 in the same sense as the others did; he was still in Claire's womb.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:45, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

Why...? Edit

Why did the plane made an emergency landing? For I have seen in the episodes, the plane started to lose altitude after entering to the island. What happened? --Dr. James (4 8 15 16 23 42) 02:24, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

why didn't they leave right away? Edit

In the finale it appears that it took two people just a couple hours to get the plane working to the point it could take back off. Did the show ever address why they didn't do that long ago rather than hang out as survivors on the island? Wikia fan 20:10, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

December 28, 2007 Edit

I think that the date is December 28, 2007 for several reasons. In Because you left, Jack finishes shaving and Ben is watching the news and Hurley being accused of killing the guy outside Santa Rosa. Before this, it showed the Washington Redskins and the Minnesota Vikings game that game took place Sunday, December 23, 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oceanic777200 (talk • contribs) 2010-06-20T15:01:25.

• This is not "several reasons", it is just one reason, and I don't believe it's reason enough to conclude a definite date as canon. Most likely the production team just used arbitrary TV footage from late 2007. And please sign your talk posts. --Celebok 23:10, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
  • Well... I'd say that while it's certainly not the best evidence possible, it is something. According to the unsigned edit, the game occured on a Sunday, and Because You Left is known to also take place on a Sunday in late December. Had this not matched up, I would have been the first one to say that it's probably a continuity error. In this case though, I think this could have been Darlton's subtle way of dating the events. Is there any evidence that the events in questions can't take place on those dates? I'd be in favour of using those dates over the current ``Xth day after Locke's death`` format, even if we have to point out, like we do we the August 2007 dates, that they may not be 100% canon. --LeoChris 17:57, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
    • Oh, I just got done reverting the Timeline:Post-return changes before I saw this response. Personally, I don't like the idea of making these dates official based on the one game seen in the background any more than the August 2007 dates based on the newspaper article, but if somebody wants to use those dates and add a similar note, then I won't object. --Celebok 18:15, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
      • We do know that dates of sporting events are the same in the Lost universe as real life. We have the example of the Red Sox winning the series in 2004. --D Toccs 23:49, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
        • The Red Sox game isn't a good comparison, because that particular game was part of a major plot point and discussed in dialog -- it was Ben's way of proving to Jack that the Others have contact with the outside world, since the World Series took place while Jack was on the Island. Whereas, the football game mentioned above was never mentioned in dialog and had no effect whatsoever on the plot; it was just something that happened to be on the TV in the background, so it's not definitive proof that the producers intentionally used that game to indicate the date. --Celebok 10:59, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
          • Not definitive no. But taken with Locke's passport that shows 12 Decmember 2007, the fact that the game happened on a Sunday which is the same day Because you Left was set on and the game being shown on the news, there certainly is a lot of evidence in favor. Certainly something worth noting at any rate. --D Toccs 11:54, July 10, 2010 (UTC)