Talk:Royal Brunei Airlines

Royal Brunei Airlines was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 31, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Royal Brunei Airlines article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Aviation: Airlines

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the airline project.

Southeast Asia: Brunei B‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Brunei.

Improvement drive

Brunei is currently nominated on Wikipedia: This week's improvement drive. Come and support it with your vote! --Fenice 18:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Profit figures

I moved this here from the main article. Royal Brunei is a private limited firm so I don't see how anyone can back up statements of "gross profit of $70million".

After the fourth quarter of 2005, Royal Brunei made their first profit after operating in debt for five years. This marked the success of their re-structuring exercise.^{[citation needed]} By the late quarter of 2006, Royal Brunei made a gross profit of $70 million dollars. ^{[citation needed]}

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I propose that Royal Brunei be renamed to Royal Brunei Airlines. Not only does this sound unprofessional and 'slang-like', but the Airlines is part of their name, as stated in the first three words of the article introduction. I have some references and reasons:

A Google Search on Royal Brunei Airlines. Please note the first non-sponsored listing: the official site, 'Welcome to Royal Brunei Airlines' and

Royal Brunei Airlines - 4 Star Airlines rating by Skytrax.
The Royal Brunei Airlines official site. See the Boarding Pass promotional advertisement -

Boarding Pass Promotion With Royal Brunei Airlines
You can always type in Royal Brunei and be redirected to Royal Brunei Airlines.
Skytrax Rating - 4 stars. Heading is 'Royal Brunei Airlines'.
Royal Brunei is used as slang just as China Eastern is used as slang for China Eastern Airways/Airlines.
Skyscanner lists them as Royal Brunei Airlines.

I hope this is enough. Sorry to all those edit conflicts, I was first to suggest (see User talk:Gnangarra).

Social Studiously 13:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move Survey

Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation. You can voice your opinion in Discussion, below.

Support

Support - see my argument above, that started off the debate. Social Studiously 13:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - appears to be the correct name of the airline according to their main page [1] which is proudly titled "Welcome to Royal Brunei Airlines" Orderinchaos78 11:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems like a no-brainer to me. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 13:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Discussion

Since this article opens with Royal Brunei Airlines would it not be more logical for the article to be at Royal Brunei Airlines. According to http://www.bruneiair.com/aboutus/history.asp the airlines own web site states Royal Brunei Airlines, the country’s flag carrier,.... What thoughts do the regular editors of this article have. note: I'm happy to do move and dab all the links if the consensus is to move. Gnan garra 13:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Result

This article has been renamed from Royal Brunei to Royal Brunei Airlines as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 14:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Nomination

I have nominated Royal Brunei for Good Article Status. I have read the What is a good article? section of Wikipedia very well, and when I matched this up to the Royal Brunei article, I determined it to fit the criteria. I'm not sure if I'm too 'new' to list it for good article status, but I do really believe it fits the criteria. Social Studiously ^{My Editor Review! -} 11:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Interpretation

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of March 31, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: no, one-sentence paragraphs, etc.

2. Factually accurate?: practically no references

3. Broad in coverage?: no, stub sections

4. Neutral point of view?: yes

5. Article stability? yes

6. Images?: yes

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — Todor →Bozhinov 20:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning Up Trivia

I was just wondering why their are Airline Codeshare's listed as "trivia" , I would of created a new Section for this, but want to make sure that it isn't a problem with everyone here. any feedbback appreciated! tomauer 11:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:RoyalBrulogo.PNG

Image:RoyalBrulogo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new logo is now in place, perhaps the above comments no longer apply to the new image being used.Robson 05:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obersttseu (talk • contribs)

Mistakes

"Passengers may check-in between 1 to 48 hours prior to departure. This may be done at the check-in counters available at the airport." Is this correct? I think you can check in online up to two days before departure but if you wanna check in at the airport you can't do it that early (that's maybe obvious). Checking in at London Heathrow, for instance, can be done up to three hours before departure. Source: http://www.bruneiair.com/travel_info/general_info.asp

This has now been updated with references from their website.Robson 06:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

"Alternatively, passengers may check-in online." Only passengers flying from Brunei, Singapore and Kuala Lumpur can check in online, again according to their website.

This has now been updated with references from their website.Robson 06:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Airbus picture

Can we include an Airbus A319 or A320 picture to replace one of the three 767 pictures? 124.168.128.33 (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)map[reply]

In-flight service and awards section improvements

I suggest to either remove the awards from the section header or add some awards history. Unfortunately RBA hasn't been getting any prestigious international awards lately.

The ban on smoking is also almost ubiquitous in the airline industry and it does not belong in this article. There already is a wikipedia article about Inflight smoking.

The intention behind RBA's not serving of alcohol is alluded to in this section and may not be appropriate. Permission for BYO alcohol may not be explicit as I can't find any official references, it can be considered to remove that statement.

Perhaps this section can be expanded by including RBA's inflight meal offerings and inflight entertainment options. Robson 07:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Royal Brunei Airlines. 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:

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) 16:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Royal Brunei Airlines.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How much from London to Manila 13 feb departure 24 February return

I can’t see the price 86.171.164.11 (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]