Jump to content

Talk:Biman Bangladesh Airlines/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

TODO

History

There seems to be a lot of concern about the history section, which indeed is a bit frugal. I have made use of the data provided on the talk page, and made a kind of summry of historical information in the "New York and Manchester routes" section, as well as "Fleet" and "Management" sections. This expanded part will need refcites, and may be a bit of summary added from the accident and incident part as well, may be a bit of info on the strikes and lay outs in Biman's history will also help. One further question - was there a golden age or something for Biman? I can recall some of the late '70s-early '80s Bangladeshi films proudly mentioning the airline, and (I don't exactly remember, though) Biman probably carried Presidents Mujib and Zia to destinations it had no regular flights to. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 04:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I have also integrated almost all the stuff from the talk page (poultry, C-check etc.) into the article. Only the e-ticketing stuff remains. But, I couldn't find the exact pages to cite for the financial tables, though some information was incorporated. Anybdy has any idea (no pun intended) if the whole tables need to be moved into the article? And, oh, the New York route stuff probably needs a date slapped onto the first para of that section, like there is one for Manchester. One more question - do we need to Wikilink the dates to build the web? Aditya Kabir 04:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting

Aditya, I got your message and I'm going to read over the article tonight and probably make some changes on it tommorow. Any feedback you have toward my changes, feel free to leave here as I will be continuing to monitor this talk page. Trusilver 21:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Kyoko has pointed out an existence of too-wordy language in the article. I guess, that'd be the most difficult problem when ironing out the glitches. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've finished my first run through the article and I've made about 130 edits, most of which were to shorten sentences or rearrange them for clarity, plus minor punctuation corrections and a few style changes. I want to go through again in about a week when I can look at it with fresh eyes. Right now the biggest change I'd like to see is to either put the list of airports served near the end of the article, or make that section more compact. Right now it visually suggests that there's nothing more to come, and it isn't the most compelling part of the article. I think too many readers will reach that point and stop.

However, I'm not ready to rearrange it just yet. I need to look at alternative ways of formatting the section, because organizationally it ought to be just where it is; it's the look that's the problem.

Anyway, thanks for inviting me to help. This is my first project as a member of the League of Copyeditors. And I'm impressed by all the work everyone has done on this page. Please reject anything I did that screwed it up. I'm sure Trusilver will hone it much better.

I am wondering if parts of the article on Modernization and history of the fleet would be best merged with the main History section. -- Preston McConkie 23:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks to Preston McConkie for your wonderful copyediting. Could I make a request to all involved to keep the British spelling etc. I would like to keep it that way for two reasons (1) mainly because that's the way it was written and (2) Bangladesh's education system is based on the British ones. Many thanks. Also, please add your comments to the peer review on what other improvements would be required for FAC. → AA (talk) — 10:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Lead

This needs to be extended by another para per guidelines. Could someone please take on this task (as my summarising skills aren't quite up to scratch :) → AA (talk) — 09:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Another suggestion on destinations

Sorry if I Americanized the spelling. I'll not do that in the future when I come across Anglicized articles.

The article looks a lot better without all the white space that was in the Destinations section. I think I'd like to see the information put back in, though. A way to do that compactly would be to put the names of the countries served in the paragraph, and make piped links taking you to articles on the airports. Say, "The following international airports: Bangladesh, Shah and Osmani; UK, Heathrow and Gatwick;" etc.

The layout of the destinations section is per the WikiProject Airlines MoS and the sub-article structure is standard practice among airline articles. → AA (talk) — 09:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

By stating "international airports" once you don't have to repeat it in each citation, and the list can be compact and informative, with links to tell anyone which city each is in if they're not familiar with it. Whattya think? Preston McConkie (talk • contributions) 04:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The "International Airport" bit is part of the name and again per project guidelines, they are shown in that manner. → AA (talk) — 09:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Original fleet

  • The Daily Star writes - "Biman came into being on January 4, 1972 initially with a Second World War vintage Dakota and a DC-3, gifts from the air force. Its domestic service with the DC-3 began within a month of its inception. Its journey as an airline actually started with the acquisition of a Boeing 707 and four F-27 aircraft. It entered the big league with the induction of three DC10-30s in 1983." (see link)
  • Banglapedia writes - "Initially it started with a Second World War vintage Dakota, DC-3, a gift from the airforce. Biman's domestic services with the DC-3 commenced within a month after its inception. Soon after commencement, the aircraft crashed on a test flight. Biman then procured two used F-27 aircraft, which were soon flying to Chittagong and Sylhet. The international flights began on 4 March 1972, with an aircraft chartered from British Caledonian. Biman today flies to 26 major international destinations and at home, it has a seven-destination network." (see link)

This should clear up the original fleet confusion in the article. Aditya(talk • contribs) 19:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need to mention presidential orders. Setup of government organisations are expected to be sanctioned by the government and do not add any useful info to the article. The actual changes would be noteworthy so maybe worth adding in the changes introduced in 1977 & 1987. → AA (talk) — 21:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
That is exactly what is needed, i.e. some information on how the acts/ordinances for Biman evolved. It can well go into the history section. For a government organization the laws governing them are indeed worth mentioning, especially if those are stand alone acts/ordinances, not just a clause of a broader one. Aditya(talk • contribs) 22:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Now to request some citations - (1) "Foreign airlines are enroaching on Biman's routes"; (2) "the space freed up by Biman when it reduced London–Dhaka flights" (3) "New startup airlines are also hoping to cash in on Biman's shortfall". Aditya(talk • contribs) 21:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
It seemed obvious at the time (although there was an inkling that a source may be requested). (1) I've seen specific mention of % passengers by foreign airlines. (2) Not sure where to source this from. It is a fact that Biman had 6 flights a week and now they have 3. Old timetables would document this but not sure if an online cite for the historical destinations will be available. (3) I'll add sources from the linked articles into here. → AA (talk) — 21:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
When the article goes for FAC, these little things may well prove to be thorny. Aditya(talk • contribs) 22:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I've made some changes as discussed above. Let me know if I've left any loopholes still. → AA (talk) — 22:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Attempted hijack?

According to this website - On January 11, the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) issued a top secret circular (NO: ER/BCAS/PIC/CIRCULAR/99), quoting "an intelligence input" about the possible hijack attempt on a Bangladesh Biman aircraft originating out of India. Copies of the circular signed by regional deputy commissioner of security (Calcutta Airport), L. Singsit, were issued to relevant Indian agencies and Bangladesh Biman's station manager in Calcutta, Md. Shahjahan. It said that eight "Pushtu-speaking Mujahideen" had infiltrated into India for the purpose. (source: Bhaumik, Subir, The Week, Aborted Mission Investigation: Did Mossad Attempt to Infiltrate Islamic Radical Outfits in South Asia?, February 6, 2000) Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

According to this website - Two years ago [i.e. 1973], they [Mujib's assassins] tried to hijack a Bangladesh Biman aircraft from Kolkata. When that attempt foiled, they tried to hire a LTTE... The Freedom Party that had first raised the slogan Amra hobo Taliban, Bangla Hobe Afghan (we will be the Taliban, Bangladesh will become Afghanistan) and had also sought to hijack the Bangladesh Biman aircraft [Bhaumik, Conspirator’s Cauldron, Himal South Asian (Kathmandu), August 2000] in order to secure the release of their comrades, Col. Farooq Rahman and Maj. Bazlul Huda. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Insufficient details to note in the article since there's no indication of what actions were taken and by whom and whether any Biman aircraft were involved. → AA (talk) — 15:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The first incident is supported by BBC (Subir Bhaumik is their Kolkata correspondent), The Week quoted in this site (written by Bhaumik). The second incident is supported by Himal Magazine. There may be other support waiting to be searched and found. Allow me to see what I can do. May be a sentence that says there has been reports of attempted hijacks. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Is the date for the 2nd incident correct? (I'm talking about the year "1973"). LTTE didn't exist at that time. --Ragib 15:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

After a frustrating day of struggles with the internet connection, I am pretty convinced that the second incident has no reliable source to quote. But the first incident is mighty well supported and, I guess, can easily go into the incidents and accidents section. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Correction Apparently the two incidents are the same, and quotes the same source - Mr. Bhaumik. The second website's mish-mash of a language got me to write that wrong piece of information - 1973. Darn my internet connections, and sorry for the inconvenience. Right now I am trying to piece together the bits of information that's available on the net to see if this makes a valid addition or not. Though with BBC's support I might end up feeling positive. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Skytrax

I think it would be very helpful to explain exactly what the signficance of a 2 star Skytrax rating is (2 stars out of how many possible, etc). The current sentence doesn't explain whether that is a good, bad, or moderate rating. --Kyoko 18:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarified Skytrax and Aviatour. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

FS Planet

Good point on the labour migrants as that is a market currently not being met using Biman's current capacity.

However, I do not believe FS Planet (a flight simulation enthusiasts website) can be used as a reliable source for an FA class article (hope I'm not jinxing it by pre-empting it :-). The information may be correct but a more reliable source needs to be used. The information has been submitted to the site by a site visitor and not by the site owners either. → AA (talk) — 15:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well... the information looked good, but, you're right - the source is really not reliable at all. Let me check if I can substantiate the information in a couple of days. If I fail, we should remove it altogether. Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 19:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Missing incident

Here. --Ragib 19:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There are a few others with similar reports and it happens quite frequently, I'm told, and not really notable unless there are multiple sources discussing it in depth. However, this one does look like it could be combined into the March 2007 incident - just need to find another source that discusses it in a bit more detail to flesh out the entry. Thanks. → AA (talk) — 22:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference

Hi there,

Just a general question: How often are the reference section updated and is it an automated process.

I am asking because the page shows 59. ^Air Sylhet official site. Air Sylhet. Retrieved on 2007-09-02. But it doesn't go the the same site as the link on page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Sylhet

Regards,

Leo

ps. keep up the good work :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.137.253.143 (talk) 11:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. The Official Site cited in this article - airsylhet.com - seems to be an older website for the airline, while the one cited in the Air Sylhet page - airsylhetonline.com - seems to be the newer website (though, I can't be truly sure). May be, AA can solve the problem.
And, no, links cited in Wikipedia are not automatically updated. This enormously judgmental procedure is left to users like you, who have already managed to draw attention to a link. This community system of check and balance is what makes Wikipedia a wonderful project. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Air Sylhet is currently undergoing a bit of a fallout with its founding chairman. It seems he has control of the original site and the company has had to move to another one. I'm following the goings on and will update the article once the issues have been settled. → AA (talk) — 19:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Aircraft Names

I have just reverted the adding of a fleet list and names but it has been inserted again. I believe that it is not encyclopedic or notable (refer WP:AIRLINES) and should be removed. Any opinions please. MilborneOne (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

As they have been no comments for week I will remove the section soon. MilborneOne (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The reason I added this section is, the table contain couple of information, type and registration number of all the aircraft Biman used, name of the aircrafts as well as status of the aircraft in the fleet. Biman, in my opinion, an interesting policy of naming its aircraft, which may not be unique but rare, and along with the other relavent information, this table will attract some attention to people interested in aviation. --Qgr (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


Bengali Spelling of Biman Bangladesh Airlines

I have corrected the Bengali spelling of Biman Bangladesh Airlines (িবমান বাংলােদশ এয়ারলাইনস) once again, but for unkown reason, someone is canging this repeatedly and putting a wrong spelling. I have posted a message to user talk of the editor and hope this will not repeat again. Cheers. --Qgr (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The same user (Nafis ru) has again changed the Bengali spelling of Biman! Do we have a moderator here, who can prevent such vandalism of Bengali names and spelling which has also been observed in some Wikipedia topics as well.--Qgr (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Qgr, you are *incorrect* here. You have a mal-configured browser that cannot display unicode Bangla correctly. The correct spelling is বিমান বাংলাদেশ এয়ারলাইনস (the ই-কার follows ব in spelling বিমান, NOT precedes it). If you can't see the latter spelling correctly, I suggest you fix your browser first. See WP:INDIC for instructions to do so. --Ragib (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I have now noticed that you have reverted the spelling correction several times in the last month. I do assume good faith here, and would guess you don't see the correct spelling in your mal-configured browser. In future, please don't re-insert the incorrect spelling. Please fix your browser. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

In flight service?

"In-flight entertainment aboard Biman aircraft is rated "very poor" by Skytrax.[51] The Douglas DC-10-30s are equipped with a projector in each cabin while the Airbus A310s have monitors that drop down from the ceiling below the luggage racks in the center of the aircraft. While other airlines using modern aircraft are able to provide more personal in-flight experiences via seatback LCD screens, Biman's ageing fleet has maintained the standard equipment available when the planes were manufactured."

Last I flew (a few weeks ago), even business class onboard Qantas 767s on 3+ hours flights don't have seat back LCDs equipped. That can't be the sole reason for the rating as suggested here. Please expand or rewrite.CW (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

FAA mandate on replacing the DC-10s

"Previously, the FAA had warned Biman to replace its ageing DC-10s by December 2005. According to experts, these aircraft did not have the necessary equipment for safely crossing the Atlantic, despite the fact that United States-based Northwest Airlines operated DC-10 aircraft across the Atlantic until 2006 without any problems.<ref name=NewAgeBD060727>{{cite news |url=http://www.newagebd.com/2006/jul/27/front.html|title=Biman not to continue flight to New York|publisher=New Age|date=[[2006-07-27]]|accessdate=2007-05-25}}</ref><ref name=BangladeshToday060517>{{cite news |url=http://www.thebangladeshtoday.com/archive/May'06/17-05-2006.htm|title=Biman in a ferrango|publisher=The Bangladesh Today|date=[[2006-05-17]]|accessdate=2007-05-25}}</ref>"

Just being curious, what avionics were onboard the Biman DC-10s? Lots of upgrades have been made available / mandatory in the more fortunate / properous parts of the world since these aircraft were purchased in 1983. For example if they were not Future Air Navigation System (FANS) retrofitted then they would most surely cause trouble over the north Atlantic because they don't have the navigation precision / communications capability for this very crowded volume of airspace.

I'm not making a judgement on whether the FAA was right or wrong, but the Northwest Airlines connection made here sounds very uninformed to me and I believe there is a POV issue here. CW (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Premature archiving

What is the point of archiving a talk page as short as the last archive page, only 21kb, leaving nothing as the article gets featured on the main page? Many users, expecially active editors, like to browse recent discussions as part of perusing an article. Having to go to an archived page is awkward, not to mention the fact that archived discussions are pretty much closed for further comments, i.e. they have to be "re-opened" on the present page, which is cumbersome. __meco (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is that the old discussions are mostly nearly a year old and the couple of topics that are from 2008 were concluded. If you do have an issue you want to raise on the article, please do so and any editors interested in participating will, I'm sure, respond. → AA (talk) — 09:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Discussions being nearly a year old should be no good reason to archive them. Many discussions on Wikipedia talk pages span more than a year. We're not debating current events here, were documenting history often, certainly in the matter of this article. __meco (talk) 10:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Final comment; as I said, if you have an issue to discuss, then do so. You are welcome to copy over any issues you feel remain unresolved but just discussing if a particular talk topic should've been archived, will not help to improve the article. → AA (talk) — 18:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Euphemism

"Created in February 1972 using vintage aircraft" – in this case wouldn't old or older be a more sober term than vintage? Or is what is meant "having an enduring appeal; high-quality, classic" (wikt:vintage)? __meco (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think "vintage" is well used here because it perfectly highlights the technology backwardness of these aircraft (even in 1972's viewpoint); "Old" or "older" just don't cut it. CW (talk) 13:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


Fleet Info

  • Biman's current fleet info is updated with the help of the official website (link: http://www.bimanair.com/aboutus/fleet_info.asp) and relevant media reports (reference given in the main article). As fleet info is a significant part of any wikipedia article on commercial airlines, I would request all not to change/update that section without valid reference. Regards Qgr (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC).

Aircraft in service?

According ch-aviation and Airfleets, none B737-800 is now in service. Only two (Used, from GOL) are stored awaiting delivery. Even one A310 and the only B777 are stored, according to the same sources. This item is hand written that even 34 B737 are already operating! 55 more on order! And there are other inconsistencies in the fleet. The entry is locked to prevent vandalism. But check the dates please! The fleet is all wrong! Indeed, if there are 34 737 already in service, how can the total fleet be 8 airplanes? Thank you. by Glassmoonformitaly. http://www.ch-aviation.ch/aircraft.php?search=set&airline=BG&al_op=1 http://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Biman%20Bangladesh.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.198.211.195 (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No new aircraft are yet in service, they are still be prepared. Someone keeps changing the fleet table. As far as I am aware, 2 Boeing 737-800's are waiting delivery and 1 Boeing 777-200ER from Portuguese carrier EuroAtlantic Airways. Deliveries are planned for late January 2010. Zaps93 (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Massive changes by Zap93

Over the last 2 months, Zap93's edits, content removals have made this article fail many of the featured article criteria. As a result, this article is in FAR now. For the time being, I have reverted it to a pre-Zap93 state, which also resolves many of the problems raised in the FAR. I hope Zap93 will work constructively rather than making messy edits that caused this featured article to fail FAC. And please STOP reverting to your broken version. --Ragib (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

In the last two months I have been housekeeping and fixing serious issues and false information, how dare you say I have vandalised when I fixed it! GO SEE! THERE IS A NEW AND BETTER PAGE FOR ALL THAT INFORMATION JUST LIKE British Airways!!!! Zaps93 (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


No, you have broken the article, see the featured article review. Most of the objections result from your careless edits. I'm reporting you to ANB. --Ragib (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
All I did was fix and clean up the page, yet you continue to call it vandalism. Go on. Go clean it up yourself, go put how much hard time I did into this article! Zaps93 (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
To begin with, you did spend a lot of time *blanking content* from the article. You can take credit for that ... also for introducing undiscussed structural changes that went unnoticed for 2 months. I merely restored the page to the state before your messy edits. Of course, you don't care about the page, rather care about the time you spent in messing it up. Care to read WP:FAC ever? Please do so. --Ragib (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
That's unfair, I aim at improving articles, maybe it was blanked, but I prefer to recognise it as 'moved'. Surely you can see my point when it helps the article moving it? Zaps93 (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Zap93, where did you move the content describing the history to? [1] --NeilN talk to me 18:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Biman Bangladesh Airlines History. Zaps93 (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, I thought you meant you moved around sections in the article. Can you please explain why the split made this article better? --NeilN talk to me 18:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a plan to fix the issues discussed in FAR:

A) revert the article to a stable state (prob. Dec 22 version by AA).

B) fix minor changes suggested in FAR

C) Reintroduce new information / table added by Zaps93 in the last month.

D) Format any new refs per WP:FAC.

How about this plan? --Ragib (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Basically I moved it to reduce the size of the article and the clutter, but me and Ragib have came up with a plan and hopefully we shall do that. Regards. Zaps93 (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, sounds good, glad you two are working things out. --NeilN talk to me 18:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
As one of the original editors involved in taking this to FA, I am also here to help and will be adding images of the new livery. → AA (talk) — 19:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Me and Ragib have decided what to do, once that is done do you think you could upload images of the new livery please? Zaps93 (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'm in the process of obtaining and adding the images. Will drop a note here once that is done. → AA (talk) — 22:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Images of new aircraft available and I've included a few in the article. → AA (talk) — 00:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Zaps93, can you do me the courtesy of discussing changes before you make them. I am trying to save this article from FAR caused as a result of your edits. Thanks. → AA (talk) — 01:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Article Protected

I've protected the article at The Wrong Version for 24 hours. During this period only admins and crats will be able to editt the article. I've done this in order to avoid blocking Zaps93 and Ragib for breaking the 3 revert rule. Please can we see more discussion and consensus reached re the changes and whether or not they should be made. I'm making no jugdement at to the merits or otherwise of either version of the article. Mjroots (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have unprotected the article following agreement between all parties. Let us now get to work! :) → AA (talk) — 22:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Reference cleanup

It's been highlighted in the FAR that the refs don't have the author listed. This did not come up during the FA and I wasn't aware this was a requirement and have therefore never included the author of news articles (personnally, I don't look at the author but rather the publication). Zaps93 (or anyone else), can you go through the refs and add the author in please where available? Thanks. → AA (talk) — 16:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Images

Size

Zaps93, can you point me to the policy/guideline which says image sizes must be thumb please? → AA (talk) — 01:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I got told somewhere and then read it, not sure. But I remember changing the size to 250xp and someone reverted and said 'use thumbs for pictures'. Zaps93 (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Normal practice is generally not to select (sometimes called forced) image sizes refer WP:IMGSIZE. MilborneOne (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
A-ha, that's where I got it from. Thanks Milborne. Zaps93 (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree with that but the policy also says "Sometimes a picture may benefit from a size other than the default" and in this case it is aesthetically better to have the picture aligned with the infobox. → AA (talk) — 09:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Captions

Please also ensure captions meet MOS:CAPTIONS and MOS:LINKS. → AA (talk) — 01:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been doing the captions that way for ages to allow a good explanation, but simple into where the aircraft is etc and have never had to change it. Zaps93 (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
As MOS:CAPTIONS says: "Captions should be succinct; more information about the image can be included on its description page, or in the main text." So, for example, in the case of the image showing the interior of the aircraft, it is irrelevant to know that the route of the flight is in the caption.
Also, MOS:LINKS says: "In general, link only the first occurrence of an item". So, linking every occurrence of the airport, country and aircraft type is not required.
→ AA (talk) — 09:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead image

Souvik.arko, could you explain your removal of a lead image in more detail please:

well the pic had a greater image size(237 px) than the other pics and i thought it was reducing the beauty of the article and the pic didn't seem to be much eye catching than the other pics we have in this article. that's why i moved the pic to another section below . for the lead section i guess we have better pic(s) than that.no other reasons. you can certainly compare the edits and see which edit looks better. as u have contributed a lot to this article you may choose what to do. thanks Souvik.arko (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I'm not too fussed about the specific image but thought readers would find it eye-catching to see an aircraft in the new livery rather than old. But the article certainly does need an image in the lead section and if you have a better one to suggest, we can consider it. We have discussed the issue of size in the sub-section above and if you have any further issues, feel free to contribute. Thanks. → AA (talk) — 10:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Feature Article Removal Candidate

Article has now been moved to FARC, although it seemed all the major issues were resolved. Please comment there for any further improvements that are required. → AA (talk) — 10:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)



Restructuring and adding new section

217.64.52.185 (talk)Comment removed by Author

Please read the criteria for featured article which this one is (by the skin of its teeth - see FARC comments) before making structural changes to the article. I do appreciate you are trying to improve it as did another editor, but discuss your changes first before implementing them. The old logo is already mentioned in the article and the new logo is on the infobox so adding them again does not improve the article any further and takes it further away from FA. → AA (talk) — 14:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

217.64.52.185 (talk)Comment removed by Author


Modeling it after other non-featured articles is not an option here ... this is a featured article, and to remain so, it needs to satisfy certain criteria. I'm assuming good faith here, but large scale non-FA-compliant format changes are not acceptable at all here. So, please don't continue making such changes, no matter how "professional" you think other airlines pages are. Those are not Featured articles, this one is. --Ragib (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

217.64.52.185 (talk)Comment removed by Author

Please don't make hasty comments. This has gone through the Airlines Wikiproject, peer reviews, GA reviews and FA reviews. At least a dozen editors with high exposure to airline articles has checked this through, along with a dozen more who has a high grasp on article structure and content in general. And, both AA and Ragib are admins here for their high standard of neutrality and quality. Whatever you've trying to do is not just plain silly it's also damaging to the article and its standing. And, please stop quoting the articles on JAL and PIA as if they were bibles. They are not. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Copy edit questions

I've been thinking about this article since I looked at its FAR yesterday, and I think it's too good to lose its FA ranking just because of a few prose glitches, so I'm offering to do the copy editing. There are a few bits that I find unclear, which I'll list here for clarification.

Many thanks and feel free to ask as many questions as it takes and I will do my best to assist. → AA (talk) — 16:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Lead
  • "Annual Hajj flights, transporting non-resident Bangladeshi workers and migrants as well as Biman's subsidiaries, form an important part of the carrier's business." Is "subsidiaries" right here? Should it be "employees"? I don't see how they could be transporting their subsidiaries. Or is this saying that Biman's subsidiaries also carry Bangladeshi workers and migrants to the Hajj? Can't make sense of it as it is anyway.
    Trying to put forward the things that are important to Biman; income from its subsidiaries is a crucial element in addition to its transportation activities of which annual hajj and transportation of migrant workers are two key factors. Let me know if you need any further clarification. → AA (talk) — 16:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
    I think I understand what that's saying now, and I've clarified it in the lead. Malleus Fatuorum 16:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "The carrier is facing competition from a number of local private airlines as well as some international carriers, which offer greater reliability and service standards, targeting the country's air transport sector which is experiencing 8% growth per annum, owing to a large number of non-resident Bangladeshis." This has clearly got to be split into two sentences, but I'm not sure how the first part of the (too long) sentence is supposed to be related to the last part. Who is "targeting the country's air transport sector", what does targeting a sector mean anyway, and how is this related to the large number of non-resident Bangladeshis? Non-resident where? Does this mean expatriate Bangladeshis?
What that is trying to say is:
  • competition is increasing from local private airlines as well as other international carriers
  • the competition is offering better services and greater reliability and flexibility
  • the country is seeing a growth of 8% pa in the aviation sector - mainly due to the large number of Bangladeshis travelling abroad for employment
  • Biman is losing out on the growth as it is the private and international airlines that are taking on the additional passengers.
"Non-resident" is equivalent to "expatriate" (i.e. Bangladeshis who are not resident in Bangladesh). A similar term is used in India for expatriate Indians. → AA (talk) — 16:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
History
  • "The short haul fleet was supplemented by a Fokker F27 from India on 3 March 1972 which saw the start of a daily flight between Kolkata (Calcutta) and Dhaka on 28 April 1972." I'm not quite sure if this is saying that the Fokker F27 from India was deployed on that new daily flight to Calcutta?
Indeed, that is correct. The newly aquired F27 was deployed on the daily Kolkata—Dhaka route. → AA (talk) — 22:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I've changed that to "The short haul fleet was supplemented by a Fokker F27 from India on 3 March 1972; the aircraft was employed on a scheduled daily flight between Kolkata (Calcutta) and Dhaka from 28 April 1972", but the "from India" bit is alarmingly vague. Malleus Fatuorum 23:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Privatisation
  • "The government is the sole shareholder of the 1.5 billion shares, but intends to offer 49 percent to the private sector while retaining majority ownership." The source for this is dated 2007, so this probably needs updating. Is this still the government's intention? Has it not been done yet? Intends to offer them when?
    I've added a more recent source but it is still an intention and they haven't actually made the shares available to the market. When this will be done is anyone's guess. → AA (talk) — 16:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The last paragraph talks about the proposed Air Bangla International, but again, the source is 2007. Did this ever happen?
    No - that did not take off :) and nothing more was reported in the media. I think it was just a knee-jerk reaction to the layoffs. → AA (talk) — 22:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
    Probably ought to add a sentence explaining that then, as at present it just seems to be left dangling in the air. Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
    I've tagged a sentence on the end. Feel free to amend during copyedit. → AA (talk) — 21:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


SO...here's the deal. I didn't see that Malleus had started a great deal of editing work already once I hopped on the task. I've gotten about midway through, and plan on finishing tomorrow. I hope I haven't caused either Malleus or AA too much grief. Let me know if you want me to stop/revert my work. Thanks. NielsenGW (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You've made a number of changes that I don't think have improved this article, including changing the date format. Frankly, I'm not altogether happy with what you've done, but it's not my article, so I'll leave it to you and this article's regular editors to take it forwards as you all think best. I'll make my mind up at the FAR once you're done. Malleus Fatuorum 03:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, many thanks to both of you for your work on the article. However, I agree with Malleus on the style issue. It is important not to alter the style when copyediting (i.e. using American formats for date, spelling instead of British English). This article uses British English for its formatting and this should not change in the copyedit process. I think it would be better if we could go back to the last version by Malleus and allow Malleus to finish his pass through the article. I hope that's OK to both. Thanks once again. → AA (talk) — 09:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
However, I think the symbol for percent (%) is preferable rather than the wording. → AA (talk) — 10:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
It's a matter of how you interpret the relevant section of the MoS really, Wikipedia:Mos#Percentages. I think it could be argued that there are enough percentages given in the article to allow "%" instead of "percent" according to the second bullet point: "The percentage symbol (%) is preferred in scientific or technical articles, in complex listings, and in articles where many percentages are reported." Malleus Fatuorum 16:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it does read better with the symbol given the number of occurences throughout the article. → AA (talk) — 21:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright. I've reversed all of my ill-advised de-British-ing of the article, but I will continue with a grammatical/syntactical sweep later today. NielsenGW (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. → AA (talk) — 21:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Scrapping new livery?

I've read recently that Biman is scrapping the new livery? Can someone confirm this? If true this is a major let down, the old livery is so outdated. Zaps93 (talk) 11:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It is true. See [2] (plus many other sources online). → AA (talk) — 08:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


Yes the livery is outdated but that new green livery completely ignored the heritage of Biman, which dates back to Bangladesh's independence movement. The livery didnt even have the name Biman in English. A national airline for an independent Bangladesh was conceived in 1968 when disenfranchised Bengalis working for PIA met Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in Chittagong. In that meeting, it was agreed that the name of the national carrier would be "Biman". After independence, the national airline was being planned to be named Air Bangla. But Mujib stuck to his word and ensured the airline was established under the trade name Biman, with the corporate name Bangladesh Biman Corporation (later changed to Biman Bangladesh Airlines Ltd. in 2007). "Bangladesh Airlines" was added underneath the name Biman to provide the world with the identity of the airline as the national carrier of Bangladesh. The Balaka logo chosen for Biman was widely hailed at the time and Biman was seen with immense national pride back in the 1970s. The Balaka was designed by the famous Bangladeshi artist Quamrul Hassan. I wish I could give a credible published source on what I wrote above, but there isn't any. This information deserves to be in the article.
The government now plants to develop a new livery around the historic Balaka logo along with colorful Bengali traditional art. There is talk of getting famous Bangladeshi contemporary artists based in Paris, Madrid and New York to design a new livery. That green livery was more like PIA or a wanabe Cathay Pacific. But most of all, it completely lacked imagination and color. It was boring and dull.-114.134.94.20 (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Leased 747-400

There has been an edit war concerning the incorporation of a Boeing 747-400 to the fleet, apparently leased from Air Atlanta Icelandic. So far, I could not find a reliable source for this; I therefore removed that information from the fleet table. A link to an image has been provided, yet that is definitely a non-reliable source. Can anybody help with this?--Jetstreamer (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Certainly a lot of amateur sources showing information about "TF-AMY" in Bangladesh colours but it looks like a Hajj wet-lease being operated for the season by Air Atlantic Icelandic so really not part of the Bangaldesh Fleet. It is normal for even wet-leased aircraft operating Hajj flights to be repainted. If anybody has a reliable source that it is dry-leased and flown by BBC rather than wet-leased and flown by ABD then it can be added. MilborneOne (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
100 747? Can't believe that. --78.94.4.55 (talk) 11:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Can you please explain yourself?--Jetstreamer Talk 22:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Founding Pilots & Crash of DC-3 on 10 February 1972

I believe there needs a section in Biman on its founding history. I am son of Capt. A S M A Khalique and I was told stories on how he and other pilots helped found Biman. I am biased as I believe my dad was a founding member of Biman and do not want to add a topic on founding of Bangladesh Biman Airlines myself. Capt. Khalique, Capt Haider and three cadets lost their lives when DC-3 crashed on 10 February 1972.

I also believe there should be a section of Pilots and Crews who lost their lives giving service to Biman Bangladesh Airlines.

I would request someone please research and write those topics. I would also request retired Biman pilots to contribute as it is also their legacy.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalim8kumar (talk • contribs) 15:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so, as the contents you are proposing to add have no encyclopedic value.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Biman is retiring their DC-10

I do not know why it keeps getting reverted, but Biman is retiring their DC-10 and it is true. Please tell me why this keeps getting reverted if the edit is true.72.89.35.142 (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, you need to have a source that says that Biman has retired their DC-10s. Otherwise nobody will believe you and they will click revert. —Compdude123 02:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Fleet facts in infobox

Ahnaaf (talk · contribs) and me have been reverting/modifying the edits made to the infobox by 174.91.223.104 (talk · contribs) three times ([3], [4], [5]). These were unexplained, and also using a reference that is of dubious origin in the first two diffs. It would be helpful for the IP editor to explain their edits, and also to explain why s(he) considers the usage of their source reliable. There's an opportunity to do so here. Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Modernisation and flight classes and amenities

The sections "Modernisation" and "Flight Classes and Amenities" need some updates, as the information is very out of date. It still says DC-10s and A310s make up the majority of the fleet. The "flight classes and amenities" should talk more about the newer Boeing 777-300ER and the Boeing 737-800s.

Ahnaaf (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ahnaaf. You can do it on your own, as per WP:BOLD. Just remember to provide reliable sources for your additions. Do you think the information you mention should be removed, or just be complemented with more regarding the new aircraft? I watch the page, so I see any changes made to it.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

737-800 orders

There is a huge mistake in the article. In the fleet table it falsely mentions that Biman has four 737-800 on orders and four on options. However, Biman has 2 on order and options. Here are the sources:

Boeing: http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2008/q2/080625a_nr.html

AFP: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hgAx3b2P6l-7XMJNDxVHEgBhWemQ

Daily Star (Bangladesh): http://archive.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=193611

eTurboNews: http://www.eturbonews.com/3325/bangladesh-airline-orders-two-737-800s

Ahnaaf (talk) 09:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, be bold and change it. You've shown that you have sources to back up your info, so go ahead and make the changes. —Compdude123 20:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Compdude123 (talk · contribs). The problem here is that Ahnaaf (talk · contribs) told me s(he) doesn't know how to modify the table. I've already made the change for him/her, and actually give them a barnstar out for noting the error!--Jetstreamer Talk 21:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

DC-10

What about dc-10, are they still active ? [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Houcinovic (talk • contribs) 02:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to the reference. I've archived it below.--Jetstreamer Talk 11:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

CEO resignation

- Other media sources have also published this news. Can someone update information? Thanks - Ahnaaf (talk) 09:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of content

@Ahnaaf: Please note that I have reinstated the content that you removed ([7]). I don't think the removal was appropriate as the information forms part of the airline's history and is properly sourced. By the way, the edit summary used in that edit was somewhat misleading. Separately, I've added a {{pn}} tag close to the number of seats for Premium Economy for the leased aircraft from Egyptair as I couldn't find that information in the reference provided. Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jetstreamer. Sorry for removing the content. I do not think these information are not required because Biman has gotten much better in terms of service and on-time performance. I don't think a {{pn}} tag is required because I have placed a seperate reference beside it. Thanks - Ahnaaf (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Jetstreamer, this is significant historical information about the airline and if things have changed now, it will be appropriate to introduce additional (sourced) information to the article. → AA (talk) — 16:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Sharjah missing from destination list

BG served this station back in 1980s early 1990s, I had the route map in an advertisement in Readers Digest but cant find it, kindly add the place with relevant reference whenever available.175.110.223.208 (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Biman Bangladesh Airlines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Biman Bangladesh Airlines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I removed the second reference from the article [8] as it does not support what it intends to. There's another one that does it.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2016

Number of fleet of Biman should be updated to 14, Biman got delivery of their own 737-800 aircrafts this shall be updated

The new aircarft has 162 seats including 12Business class and 150 Economy class seats equipped with modern IFEs from Rockwell Collins The new 737s Registration no. is S2-AHO named Meghdoot and S2-AHV as MoyurPankhi. The both Meghdoot and Moyurpankhi were named by the PM Sheikh Hasina Hameem1102 (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Archived references not used in the article

--Jetstreamer Talk 16:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 112 external links on Biman Bangladesh 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.
Checked The Daily Star links - bot appears to have over aggressively marked them deadurl when they weren't. BBC, bdnews24, and flightglobal also are unlikely to have gone dead, so remainder should be checked. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Checked BBC News, bdnews24.com, and FlightGlobal - bot marked them deadurl when in all but one case they weren't. The less frequently used sources like biman-airlines.com, The Financial Express, The Independent, etc. still need to be checked, and are more likely to have suffered link rot than the majors. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Finished checking. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 73 external links on Biman Bangladesh 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) 00:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Biman_Bangladesh_Airlines/Archive_2&oldid=1175597233"