# Talk:Drukair

The name of this airline is a little unclear.  The web page talks mostly about "DRUK AIR" and references a Druk Air Corporation Ltd, so I've opted for Druk Air as the name. The "Royal Bhutan Airlines" bit seems parenthetical, and the spelling "Drukair" as found on the A319's seems to be just stylistic. Jpatokal 03:05, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree, and I see that Kuensel takes the same approach.  technopilgrim 

I feel safe in removing the stub tag in that the article already enumerates every plane the airline has every owned, plus every flight in its schedule. I'm not optimistic that the article can be expanded significantly without giving the names of specific flight crew members.  Some articles just aren't destined to be 30KB hogs.   Good work & I'd say this article is plenty full-size given the topic.  technopilgrim 21:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I was in Paro over (US) Thanksgiving this year (2005).  The BAe 146's were still parked in Paro.  Based on the Druk Air inflight magazine it seemed that they were still in use.  Perhaps summers only?  I flew in and out on A319s
I was in Paro early April 2008.  One A319 was in the hanger overnight (the other apparently overnights in Bangkok).  The only aircraft mentioned in the inflight magazine is an A319-114.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.70.1 (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 

I work for Flybe in Exeter, UK, and we hold the maintenance contracts for the Druk Air BAe146's. One has had a heavy maintenance (C Check) this week, and is still operational.
The aircraft also had its Royal Bhutan Airlines livery replaced with a new Druk Air livery

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 15:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Druk Air Royal Bhutan Airlines -resized200.jpg 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 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 22:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The table of destinations is preferable over the "list" as it makes use of the space in the article - i.e. there is no huge amount of whitespace, and the list is frankly ugly, whereas the table is well formatted. There is no relevant WP:GUIDELINES at WP:AIRLINES which dictates that destination lists need to be ugly, cumbersome lists. It is my intention to take this to WP:FA status before too long, and having a look at previous FA nominations, well-formatted tabulated lists are looked on more favourable than lists such as what Zap is forcing upon this article. Article content is decided upon by article editors, by reaching consensus on an article by article basis. Also Zaps, you are the editor who disagreed, as if you look at the article history, you will see that I was the editor who expanded the article and created the table. Please discuss before blindly reverting, and discuss here first. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 19:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, yours is simply a point of view. I disagree with using the table, because its been a long-established convention and norm to use a list (as for the thousands of other airline articles) rather than a table. Pretty or not, we must be consistent, and a selective change to a "pet"article is not the way to go. Should anyone feel the need to establish a new norm or convention, then by all means do. But go about it in the correct way: by bringing your proposal to the project talk page, let editors contribute with their thoughts, and then, if there is consensus, people will start making the agreed-upon change sto all articles.
In any event, the Drukair talk page is NOT the place to discuss this.
Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 12:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Jasepl! The table is confusing and untidy most of the time! The current format is much better. Zaps93 (talk) 14:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Druk Air/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
This article is being reviewed by someone else and they should get additional time.  I would suggest getting a picture of the RJ-85X or similar plane since there is so much text devoted to it.  This article looks good and I predict it will easily pass GA.  TeacherA (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The airline never operated the RJ-85X, as the program itself was cancelled. There are a number of photos of the BAe 146 in Druk Air livery available on the net, and have approached people for permission, but as yet, none has been forthcoming in the last 12 months or so. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 10:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Comments

The article could do with some more copyediting for flow. I've done some, but this is by far my weakest part of Wikipediaing, so I'll pass the ball on.
It has been reworded in parts
I would have liked to see a longer lead. While it talkes about the framework around the airline, is says little about the details of the fleet, operations and history (hard facts).
Lead has been expanded
As far as I have seen, it is not common to insert "politeness" terms such as "his majesty" in titles.
Fixed.
I can't hold you against it in this review, but there are spacing errors with some of the dashes. I've fixed those I found.
Fixed
First occurrence of currency is spelled out, additional mentions use ISO code. (fixed)
Fixed
In the "contemporary developments" section, a lot of past events are written as if they will occur in the futue.
Fixed
There has now been established concensus that destinations should be in table format, see for instance the tables in List of Braathens destinations or List of Dragonair destinations. This consensus has changed since the talk page comments made in 2009. This is not part of any GA criteria, so this can be merely be regarded as advice. In any case, the list needs to be de-boldfaced and the hyphens replaced with endashes.
Smartened up and table added
I would like to have seen a 'service' or similar section. What sort of frequencies are the various routes etc.? Could you mention something about on-board service, frequent flyer program etc. Doesn't have to be a lot, but something.
A section was added but Russavia removed it claiming information about cabin services and standards to be unencyclopedic. Unfortunately he is highly uncommunicative and unwilling to discuss.
I responded to your questions at User_talk:Russavia#Druk_Air. I did indeed remove a section which is IMHumbleO unencylopaedic. As mentioned on my talk page, all of what I removed is standard issue from airline to airline around the world. Druk Air is not an airline which has to compete with others - it is currently a monopoly into and out of Bhutan - there are no PTVs, there are no FFPs, there are no space-age reclining seats. It is, for the most part, another form of public transport. WP:NOTTRAVEL also has to come into play. The fact that it was only sourced to the airline itself, is proof enough to me that it is just another form of promotion; something that happens all over airline articles, and is not required. We aren't here to provide an advertorial, but an encyclopaedic article, and we should be careful that the line isn't crossed; but when it is crossed, it should be relevant information that one would expect to see in an encyclopaedia, not at wikitravel.org. On a side note, has one looked at http://www.drukair.com.bt/COMMON.aspx?Type=Corporate%20Information.htm. I would be hesitant to use this as a source for information, as it is obvious they have used the article that I expanded as the basis for their own info - note the use of "operational bases" - something that I included in the infobox, where before it said "hub". As mentioned on my talk page, I do have more information to add to the article, and it is something that is notable - the fact that they used to operate Mountain flights, and this will be added to the article itself in the next day or so; I am just collating information from the 50-odd sources I still have in Zotero for inclusion into the article itself. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 10:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Your both right. Something has to be said, such as the 20–90 seating split, perhaps mention if there is complimentary meals and seat pitch. Cabin baggage size and carry-on luggage allowance is on the other hand not encyclopedic, for, as Russavia says, it is trivial and similar around the world. A company's website can be used as a RS for matters relating to the company itself, as long as it is factual and not related to issues outside the company. I would have said that for a flag carrier to not have FFP is more notable than saying they had one. Arsenikk (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Lifeline and Woodford are both disambiguation pages.
Fixed.
There is a dead link with a WP:WEBCITE available.
Fixed
Ref 66 is missing a title. Refs 76 and 77 are incorrectly formatted (missing meta data).
Fixed
There seems to have been established consensus that old logos do not fall within the permitted non-free image use criteria.
Removed.
Placing on hold. Arsenikk (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Passed. Arsenikk (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Druk Air. 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:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130525145551/http://www.tashidelek.in/pdfs/july08.pdf to http://www.tashidelek.in/pdfs/july08.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 19 external links on Druk Air. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://bhutanobserver.bt/6640-bo-news-about-you_ask_we_answer.aspx
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141217004151/http://www.icao.int/icao/en/jr/1983/3806.djvu to http://www.icao.int/icao/en/jr/1983/3806.djvu
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/news-events-single/detail/the-a319-excels-in-operations-from-high-altitude-airports/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2509/stories/20080509250912200.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/1987/12/31/business/british-aerospace-orders.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/10/business/business-diary.html?pagewanted=2
Corrected formatting/usage for http://burmalibrary.org/docs3/BPS96-11.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/avro-rjx-makes-first-flight-after-subcontractor-delays-129802/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/druk-seeks-rjx-replacement-139971/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/british-european-agrees-to-cancel-rjxs-141957/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/druk-air-revives-suspended-fleet-renewal-effort-163300/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-pulls-out-of-druk-air-fleet-competition-155946/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_23/aero_23.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraphindia.com/1031110/asp/siliguri/story_2553387.asp
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bhutansociety.org/newsletter/28.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dawn.com/news/131289/bhutan-stops-bd-flights
Corrected formatting/usage for http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/royal-bhutan-airlines-misses-flight-to-mumbai/articleshow/2911142.cms
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bhutan39s-druk-air-looks-to-expand-222856/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2620/stories/20091009262012200.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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) 12:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Druk Air. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607014445/http://www.adb.org/documents/csps/bhu/2005/csp-bhu-2005.pdf to http://www.adb.org/documents/csps/bhu/2005/csp-bhu-2005.pdf
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) 06:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Druk Air. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100603012110/http://www.adb.org/documents/books/ado/2006/default.asp to http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/ADO/2006/default.asp
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tashidelek.in/pdfs/jan08.pdf
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) 06:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

There is some contradictory information between the Drukair and BAe 146 articles. The Drukair page first suggests the airline never wanted or received the BAe 146, but later states that it sold the aircraft in the 2000s. Meanwhile, the BAe 146 article does not list Drukair as a former operator at all. This creates confusion for readers.
According to fleet records (see Planespotters.net: ), Drukair did operate two BAe 146‑100s before eventually selling them, while a later planned order for Avro RJX aircraft was cancelled. It would be helpful if both articles were clarified to distinguish between the original BAe 146 deliveries and the later RJX cancellation, and to ensure Drukair is consistently listed as a former BAe 146 operator. 178.230.41.197 (talk) 06:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

planespotters.net cannot be trusted - see WP:PLANESPOTTERS. Do you have any other sources that support your observation? 10mmsocket (talk) 07:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Please see Category:Avro RJ70 of Drukair - Wikimedia Commons.
As for the Avro RJ70 not being the BAe146, please read British Aerospace 146 where it says in the first paragraph: "The British Aerospace 146 (also BAe 146) is a short-haul and regional airliner that was manufactured in the United Kingdom by British Aerospace, later part of BAE Systems. Production ran from 1983 until 2001. Production figures include the Avro RJ, an improved version from Avro International Aerospace, a subsidiary of BAE Systems." ~2025-31881-78 (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)