Jump to content

Talk:Kuala Lumpur International Airport/Archive 2

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

CX PEN-KUL

Though it has connection from PEN-KUL and vice-versa, you are not able to pick up passengers who only fly to both passengers. You can't buy tickets for to PEN from KUL even in CX website. So that would mean we shouldnt put Pen as the destionation for CX. Am I right or not? -- Zack2007 08:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. If you cannot ride on CX from KUL going to PEN, then it should not be listed. The list is for destinations FROM the airport. If a passenger cannot disembark, or in this case, cannot even embark due to cabotage, then it should not be listed. /ɪlεktʃɹɪk bluː/ 16:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Today, Penang has been listed again on CX by an anon user. This time they have added a reference to it. Doesn't matter if you cite the source, CX still have no rights to trasport PEN-KUL only! I have removed it from the list once again!! Bucs2004 02:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination failed, 4 March 2004

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

I am failing this GA nomination mainly because of its extensive lack of sources and inline citations. It also has structural issues, particularly with the long lists of mainly unimportant information, whereas significant sections (i.e. Incidents) appear to be overlooked. Needs some cleanup and copyediting, as well as verifying. Good work so far though, please don't be discouraged and feel free to renominate at any time :) (if you would like any further comments please contanct me at my talk page). Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 00:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

KUL - SIN route operated by other airlines

I now have realised that the stopovers between KUL and SIN by all the involved airlines may not have the rights to transport passengers. For all the articles I have read, KUL - SIN route appears one of the most lucrative route which is dominated by both MAS and SIA only. The airlines that make stopover between this route are Air Sahara, Air Mauritius, Biman Bangladesh, Emirates, Japan Airlines, Pakistani International Airlines, Sri Lanka Airlines. If there is not such ability in booking flights between KUL and SIN by all above mentioned airlines and according to Wiki Airport Policy, Singapore should be removed like Penang was being removed in CX. Mike86 17:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Approximately 3 seconds Googling would have revealed that you, can, indeed fly on JL and UL. The other airlines do not, AFAIK, have carriage rights. Jpatokal 12:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Jetstar Asia Airways and ownership

I am reverting to my edit, on Jetstar Asia Airways. Jetstar Asia Airways is 49% owned by Qantas, so it deserves to be under Qantas. This is similar to Thai AirAsia and Indonesia AirAsia which is 49% owned by AirAsia. What ways to justify Jetstar Asia Airways to be on it's own? --Zack2007 (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

JetStar Asia Airways deserves to be standing on its own. Jannisri (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Qantas doesnt own Jetstar Asia Airways directly, they own 49% of Jetstar Asia's parent Orange Star. Thus technically Qantas aren't direct owners of the Airline, unlike the AirAsia subsidiarys which in part are directly owned by their parent Airlines. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 08:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I've paid visit to the other airports page like Bangkok & Singapore, indeed Jetstar Asia is listed solely from Qantas. Mike86 (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Turkish Flight to KLIA

I kept wondering why the people are adding Turkish Airline into the list that says TK will start flying to KLIA on 10th June 2007. I hope someone can provide the source for this information or just stop adding TK into the list.Marcusaffleck 08:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:KLIALOGO.JPG

Image:KLIALOGO.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 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 04:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:KLIALOGO.JPG

Image:KLIALOGO.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 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 04:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Malaysia

Calling all Malaysian Wikipedians around the world!! It is high time for us to start our own WikiProject for Malaysia..any one can create/assiting me to create WikiProject Malaysia. Marcusaffleck 11:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


Transaero & Gulf Air

Hi, guys! I found that Transaero is no longer serving Kuala Lumpur route. There were no Kuala Lumpur listed in the website at the flight schedule, even Mas, which signed the codeshare agreement with Transaero, has also removed moscow from the route map. I think Transaero should be removed or put as seasonal.

Gulf Air has increased the services to KUL but they do not connect Muscat with KUL anymore. Instead, they fly non stop between bahrain and kul. So i think Muscat should be removed. Similarly, Muscat has also been removed from the route map of MAS where MAS also codeshares with Gulf Air. Mike86 05:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Candidate, 2007-06-30

Oppose: By today's standards, this article does quite meet the Good Article criteria. For starters the article is full of unsourced statements, and there are far too many poorly written sentences, despite the overall good quality of writing. The flow from sentence to sentence also needs work in some cases.

On top of this, the amount of lists, graphs and tables is way too high, and the high number of images needs to be addressed. Because of this I cannot support the article at its current state. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Review

The article is well written but unfortunately is not well sourced. Many paragraphes and sections are completely devoid of any references. I would prefer an inline ref after every factual statement. The list of references is in a bad shape: no authors, dates, publishers. One ref lacks even title. There some problems in the structure: one sentence sections and paragraphs.

Some other suggestions. The subsection "A380 Upgrades" should be merged into "Future plans" subsection. Lead should be rewritten since it doesn't provide a summary of the article content.

Initially I wanted to put this article on hold but noticed "The neutrality of this article or section is disputed" tag in the "Taxis and limousine" subsection. So now I'm going to fail it. Ruslik 09:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sat Terminal Image

Im not sure if the caption is suitable, I know it's a pedants point but if you look to the background of the image there appears to be daylight. Am I correct or am I just seeing some bright light.

By the way, the pictures great other than that.

DannyM 11:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pix1.jpg

Image:Pix1.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 (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

KLIA Schematic Plan

Since KLIA has made some changes on their master plan, i think its the time to redraw the schematic plan. I have the photos but i need someone to help me in drawing it. Not much changes, just the new side. The old side is still untouch. The drawing could be like BKK's oneJannisri (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

Unfortunately, this article fails some of the GA requirements, and thus I cannot pass it. Things that need to be fixed to bring it up to GA standards are outlined below.

1) Many online sources do not have access dates
2) There are not enough references. As a rule of thumb, each section should have at least one footnote.
3) The article is too long. I would remove much of the information in the 'operations and infrastructure' section, including the following subsections which in my opinion are not important: air traffic control tower, baggage handling system, fire and rescue, animal hotel and meteorological services.
4) All the pictures are on the right hand side. The article could be made more aesthetically pleasing if some of the pictures are moved to the left.
5) The lead is not long enough. It should probably be twice as long as it is and incorporate more information from the entire article, not just statistics and history.

Please nominate the article again when changes have been made. Feel free to ask me any questions. Zeus1234 (talk) 04:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Air Mauritius

As a casual glance at their route map will show, Air Mauritius only flies to KUL in a triangle route with SIN, and is thus not a "hub" in any rational sense of the word. Jpatokal (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

But Air Mairitius has their crew base here. I feel that hub doesnt mean the airline has to have onward connection to be hub. Instead, hub also includes crew base, main operation base etc. Jannisri (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see Airline hub. Air Mauritius operates all of three (3) flights a week to KL, has no onward flights and bases no aircraft there, so no, that's not a hub by any stretch of the word. Jpatokal (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GreenGlobeSilver.jpg

Image:GreenGlobeSilver.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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

KLIA destination list/table

Why talk individually, lets people who contribute to this article give a say. First of all, the table does not conform the WP:Airports rule. You said the table benefits people because it is easy viewing. Doesn't the simpler list also easier to view? Not only that, it is easier to edit as well. My point stresses on that because the list gets changed frequently as airline destination is dynamic and changes every day. The table does not involve new information and increases the number of characters for the article. I vote for list for simplicity and easier of reading. It is also uniform with most airliner articles. --Zack2007 (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Support for the new table presentation. Although it's not in WP:Airports, we always have to innovate to stand out from the others. Just like Incheon International Airport and Singapore Changi Airport, their articles stand out. We have to be bold, innovate to improve the readibility of the article. Moreover, by editing the new list, it's not difficult to edit. By just adding |-, | and stuff, your edit is completed. Marcusaffleck (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I realise from here that positions made on this issue by some individuals seem to be "politically motivated (in the wikipedian sense of coz)" than one based on objective reasoning. If anyone chooses to reject the table just because it originated from me, than I must say that is simply tragic as far as this project is concerned. Zack2007's view that the old table is "easier to view" is highly subjective. I personally consider the previous format extremely jarring to the eye. That the new format is more difficult to edit and adds more to the article size is nullified by the advantage of a clearer presentation and the introduction of a sorting feature, the later of which was actually the primary motivation on its introduction over at the Singapore Changi Airport article in the first place.--Huaiwei (talk) 06:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That's my point.

That the new format is more difficult to edit and adds more to the article size is nullified by the advantage of a clearer presentation and the introduction of a sorting feature

Jannisri (talk) 07:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

For me I prefer uniformity across all articles in wikipedia so that it is easier to read when switching between airport articles. Editing is easier because extra characters are not needed (only brackets and "star" characters). I do admit though new features like sortable could be handy, but i vote for simplicity and following the concensus. --Zack2007 (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank God the real world dosent take this view in general, or we will still be living on a planet which is uniformly covered in jungle with tribes living a simple life in caveholes. Simplicity looses its purpose when it gives little value-add to the reader. "Easier" reading between articles is a moot point when there is no direct statistics showing readers readership patterns, or of any significant number of complains on "difficulty" in reading articles with some level of difference. These are self-imagined "difficulties" not backed up by imperical evidence, pushed forth for no better reason then personal laziness in handling a sligntly more complicated editing process.--Huaiwei (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

GA review 2

I generally don't hit the quick-fail button, but there aren't nearly enough references in parts of the article.

  • If reference 3 is for the first 3 paragraphs of the History section, each paragraph needs to be cited.
  • "In November 2006, the Malaysian government announced that it had approved in principal the construction of a rail link between the main terminal building and the low cost carrier terminal. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2007." - unreferenced
  • Operations and Infrastructure - the first 3 subsections are completely unreferenced. So are sections "Fire and rescue", "Air cargo", and "Animal hotel", the last of which is very stubbish.
  • Subsection "Meterological services" is completely unreferenced.
  • Subsection "Low cost carrier" is completely unreferenced.
  • The entire section "Ground transportation" is completely unreferenced.

Until the references and sections marked as "needing expansion" are developed, I will have to fail the article. —Rob (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Operations and infrastructure

I'm suggesting moving this all into its own article. Makes the main article more concise. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft type

Aircraft types are WP:TRAVEL and should not be in the destination table. Any reason to keep? HkCaGu (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought we said here: [1] that aircraft types are not to be listed as they change without notice and they are not encyclopedic. Cashier freak (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

KL International Airport or Kuala Lumpur International Airport

Although it is acceptable to use the term "Kuala Lumpur International Airport" as it is more descriptive and refers to the main airport serving Kuala Lumpur (as was the case with the previous Subang International Airport), the correct and official name for this current airport is KL International Airport.

1) All airports in Malaysia (except for private ones) are managed by Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad. The official name KL International Airport stands out in their list of airports. http://www.malaysiaairports.com.my/index.php?ch=38&pg=158&ac=1040

2) Avoid getting confused when KL is expanded to Kuala Lumpur to sell it as a destination. See both links of this KLIA magazine site first http://www.klia.com.my/index.php?ch=80&pg=267 and http://www.klia.com.my/index.php?ch=70&pg=182

3) In the hardcopy of the official KLIA magazine, KL International Airport is used as the official name.

4) When the fourth prime minister of Malaysia, Dr Mahathir Mohamad spearheaded this airport project, he named it and repeatedly called it KL International Airport

The question now is, can we change the title of this article to KL International Airport and use the Kuala Lumpur International Airport page as a redirect page instead, without losing the revision history?

Info3000 (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The About page of the official KLIA site states "Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA) is one of Asia's major aviation hubs and is a destination in itself." KL International Airport/KLIA are just shorthand. Jpatokal (talk) 06:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not Jpatokal. Check their other link as well, they are incongruent (point 2). That site is a marketing site for passengers. It is highly likely they didn't realize the confusion they had caused. The authority on this would be the operators of the airport as stated in point 1, MAHB. MAHB is also who the klia.com.my markeeter should be reporting to and the markeeter probably doesn't even realize there is such a confusion. You have to understand the motive behind promoting the term "KL" instead of Kuala Lumpur during that period. The prime minister then, Mahathir Mohamad, who had direct executive control over this project (and the whole country, sad to say), wanted to promote the term KL to the world to ensure it became as synonymous as LA is to Los Angeles. It was already a common term among Malaysians then. It was also probably because this new airport was actually in Sepang and not in Kuala Lumpur and 'KL International Airport' is something the prime minister can defend as being just a name. The confusion was even more serious when the only highway to the new airport then (ELITE highway) had actually used Kuala Lumpur International Airport on their signboards. Within a year, the signboards had to be changed to use the name KL International Airport. It remains so till today.

You would also have to reason that if Kuala Lumpur International Airport was the official name, then the only abbreviation existing would have to be KLIA and the term KL International Airport would not even exist in official sites of MAHB (as in point 1), Department of Civil Aviation and the marketing klia site. We cannot blame the klia.com.my marketing site for not presenting it clearly. Their monthly hardcopy KLIA magazine is their main business and in that it's quite clear.

Internationally however it is not wrong to use the term Kuala Lumpur International Airport referring to the code KUL. The previous Subang International Airport also used the code KUL bearing the description Kuala Lumpur International Airport. I am sorry that Malaysia's leaders could not just be straight forward and avoid such confusion but this is the case.

PS. I just found the official KLIA magazine site http://www.kliatimes.com.my/ created to allow for softcopy downloads of their magazine. The bigger KLIA legally contracted marketing team produces this magazine monthly. The much smaller internal website team that does not have a contract to follow handles www.klia.com.my which I must say is not as impressive and dynamic as it should be. Please look at the magazine site as well, so that I can rest my case.

PPS. Here is also the link for the Department of Civil Aviation (DCA) of KL International Airport http://www.dcaklia.gov.my/EnglishPages/MENU/MainFrame.htm It is mandated and promoted by their DCA Director at KLIA. This is as official as it can get from DCA. Do look at the main framework pages. They use KL International Airport. As it has somewhat turned to serve more of their internal employees, we cannot blame them if they have some errors in some internally contributed articles. Officially DCA of Malaysia would have only one centralised website at http://www.dca.gov.my/main.php but they would have no business naming individual airports. The owners and operators are still Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad.

PPPS. Please understand that I am not wondering if KL International Airport is the official name. I know so! Wikipedia has or had potential, but if accurate information takes the backseat to popular information, then it is very sad indeed.

Info3000 (talk) 05:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Official KLIA website still lacking

The official KLIA website is still lacking in terms of tourism presentation. It looks like it's just an extension of the Malaysia Airports webpage. Their free KLIA monthly magazine has more focus in this case. If you are still confused with the official name of the airport look at the following

Official Malaysia Airports website http://www.malaysiaairports.com.my/index.php?ch=38&pg=158&ac=1040
Official KLIA page (badly navigated) http://www.klia.com.my/index.php?ch=70&pg=182
Official KLIA monthly magazine http://www.kliatimes.com.my/
Semi-official Department of Civil Aviation KLIA http://www.dcaklia.gov.my/EnglishPages/MENU/MainFrame.htm

Proof to the correct name of the airport being KL International Airport is mostly physical. Official road signs leading to the airport, airport magazine, representation at the airport itself, and physical marketing materials/displays from KLIA. It would be hard for those in the cyberworld to witness all this.

I think I will write to the official KLIA site, that had caused a lot of confusion in the cyberworld, on their innocent and non-authoritative statement. I do hope they don't drag their feet. I'd like to move on to more important work.

Info3000 (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

File:KLIA Satelite Terminal View.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:KLIA Satelite Terminal View.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

File:KLIA departure dropoff.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:KLIA departure dropoff.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Kuala Lumpur International Airport

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Kuala Lumpur International Airport's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Route Map":

  • From Emirates destinations: Emirates Destinations
  • From Cebu Pacific destinations: Cebu Pacific Air - Route Map
  • From Singapore Airlines destinations: "Singapore Airlines Route Map". Singapore Airlines. Retrieved 30 November 2011.
  • From SilkAir destinations: "SilkAir Route Map". SilkAir. Retrieved 30 November 2011.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Wrong airport picture

In the "Airlines and Destinations" section there is a photo of Malaysia Airlines Boeing 737-800 landing at Kuala Lumpur International Airport. That photo is actually at Subang Airport which is another whole aiport. It is lifted from Airliners.net from the uploader, even shows its in Subang Airport. Also I frequently fly from KLIA and there are no such buildings to the sides of the runways. Can somebody remove it?Timothyngim (talk) 08:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Destination map

Should not include buenos aires as Malaysia airlines no longer flies there. LibStar (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents section

I removed it. The entries were unreferenced- 2001 Saudia entry and 2011 bomb, not a aviation accident or incident per 'Convention on International Civil Aviation Annex 13'- Both 2007 entries, 2008 and 2009 entry. As for MH 370, the accident or incident didn't take place at KL but elsewhere. I can cite a long list of articles- Delta Flight 193 for example, that aren't listed as incidents at their originating airports....William 03:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request

Can someone remove China Eastern Airlines from the list and add Shanghai Airlines to Shanghai-Pudong since this service has transferred from China Eastern to Shanghai Airlines. Source: http://airlineroute.net/2014/10/30/mufm-kul-w14/. 71.12.206.168 (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Done Tafeax (talk) 06:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.23.198.10 (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: add Malindo to Kathmandu

Malindo Air will start a route to Tribhuvan International Airport (Kathmandu), 18 January 2015[1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.121.221.3 (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: @200.121.221.3: No official announcement from Malindo as of 12th December 2014. Only Nepali aviation authority made the inaugural service statement. Will update once official statement or flight schedule available. Tafeax (talk) 06:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://indo-aviation.com/2014/12/10/malindo-air-akan-buka-rute-baru-kuala-lumpur-kathmandu/

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kuala Lumpur International Airport. 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.

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 11:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

about the three airplane left on the airport

clame on the airplans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.229.234.254 (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Renaming Kuala Lumpur in destination list? Cast your vote

I propose to list KUL in destinations list as Kuala Lumpur–International to avoid confusion with Kuala Lumpur–Subang (SZB). This 'alike' destination appear in 9 airports; 6 in Malaysia, 1 in Thailand, 1 in Indonesia and Singapore's Changi Airport. The worst should be in Penang Airport and Langkawi Airport (shown below) where Malindo Air serves from both KUL and SZB.

AirlinesDestinations
AirAsia Guangzhou (begins 24 January 2016),[1] Kuala Lumpur, Penang, Singapore
Firefly Kota Bharu,[2] Kuala Lumpur-Subang, Penang
Malaysia Airlines Kuala Lumpur
Malindo Air Kuala Lumpur, Kuala Lumpur-Subang
Rayani Air Kuala Lumpur
SilkAir Singapore
Tigerair Singapore

For a record, the airport serving Amman, Jordan was listed as Amman–Queen Alia despite the secondary airport Amman–Civil being less prominent and very few activities. If you are in favour vote Yes. If you against please state No. Tafeax (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes 97.85.113.113 (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
This was also disputed a couple of years back at the Singapore Changi Airport page. Please see Talk:Singapore_Changi_Airport#Kuala_Lumpur-Subang_or_Subang.3F. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes for me too. Wjkxy (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Per WP:Airports, since the airports are much different sizes, they should listed as Kuala Lumpur–International and Kuala Lumpur–Subang (Use the longer dash) Stinger20 (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
@Stinger20 I've replaced the proposed name to include dash instead of hyphen-minus. Thank you for voting. Tafeax (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but Wikipedia does not use voting but consensus.Furthermore, the discussion should not limit to this airport. I therefore suggest this to be raised to WT:AIRPORTS so anyone can participate. As far as I'm concerned, I'm reverting the change at Istanbul Atatürk Airport.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
@Jetstreamer Sorry about my ignorance of WP:POLL. I've posted an invitation on WT:AIRPORTS since 29 December 2015, but nobody seems to warn me as regard to voting abuse. I've raised for a consensus on WT:AIRPORTS. As of now, it will stick to Kuala Lumpur–International to avoid the above mentioned confusion. Should there be a reasonable disagreement, I'll change it to Kuala Lumpur. Tafeax (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
@Tafeax: You seem to have unilaterally taken a decision here. Where is the concensus? Has this discussion been closed by an uninvolved admin as change? The same applies to you changing the title of KUL in the lead. You need to wait and have patience till a consensus is reached. Since there is no consensus as of now, your change can be considered invalid, although I'm inclined to your proposal. — LeoFrank  Talk 15:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://airlineroute.net/2015/11/23/ak-lgkcan-jan16/
  2. ^ http://airlineroute.net/2015/08/31/fy-lgkkbr-w15/

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2016

Klia2 (talk) 07:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kuala Lumpur International Airport. 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}}).

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) 03:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Kuala Lumpur International Airport. 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) 16:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Kuala Lumpur International Airport. 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) 08:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

ET KUL-SIN

Just to clarify, ET DOES have traffic rights to carry pax solely between KUL and SIN, see this for an example. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kuala_Lumpur_International_Airport/Archive_2&oldid=1184279935"