Talk:Business travel

What exactly is the point of this article?

- To provide useful information for business travellers? - To provide info on travel-related careers for those interested in travel?

I don't mean to criticize past contributions, but right now the article could do a lot better on either front - if we can decide what it's topic really should be. (WT-en) SONORAMA 10:34, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

Quite clearly, the article tries to do both, which I don't see as a bad idea. Obviously, it is useful to someone considering a career that will involve much travel. It is also a place for hardened business travellers to share information. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 12:08, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

Clean up and restructure

There seems to be a good deal of cleanup needed here. I'm going to make a wild assumption and suggest that Astronauts are not going to be using this article to understand how to do their job better.

What I'm thinking is less 101 description of business travel ("you can use planes and trains!"), and more useful conduct about how to conduct business internationally (handshake conventions, business attire, etc). --Andrewssi2 (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Sound like a good idea. How about topics such as tips on Frequent flyer, hotel, car hire member schemes; packing tips (what and how); obtaining work visas; managing travel costs and travel expenses; medical preparations; connectivity (internet and phone); legal issue; security (personal and data)... --Traveler100 (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes definitely. Work visas may be problematic if only the situation changes in each country constantly, but the high level approach can be discussed. Linking through to other articles such as Frequent_flyer_programmes with some additional notes around business use could be useful.

I'd also like to get rid of the "High-travel jobs" and "Get around" sections because they are pretty much content for the sake of content rather than anything useful. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Is there any good reason for frequent flier programs to be spelled the British way? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Nope, just personal preference of the original author I guess. You can move it to American with a redirect if you really want. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Dangerous or not fun

From the article:

Business travellers are more likely to visit places like Lagos, Bogotá or Jakarta that the average Western tourist may find dangerous.

Previous wording:

Business travellers are more likely to visit places like Lagos, Bogotá or Jakarta where few tourists would go for fun.

Though it's in the "Stay safe" section. But is it accurate? I thought Bogotá had become a somewhat popular tourist destination before the pandemic, and is Jakarta dangerous as a whole? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

There is certainly a certain crowd (If the abbreviation "numtot" rings a bell) who practically worship at the altar of the mayor of Bogotá due to their (both the current one and her immediate predecessor) pro-cycling and pro-transit urban redesign policies and I could well imagine some of them going to Bogotá for the fun of checking out the Ciclovías same as one would do in Amsterdam... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

How do you think we should reword this sentence? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what the ideal wording is, myself. I definitely give pause to the idea any of those three cities are actively unappealing tourism destinations (maybe Lagos) -- Bogota and Jakarta certainly get quite a bit of it. (Jakarta may get less than Bali, but Bali is a special case...) It could possibly do with being removed entirely, because it struck me reading it as based off an odd set of stereotypes about the developing world. The modifications I made were trying to point towards what I think the original writer was getting at, which is that if your experience in tourism is in very wealthy places, cities such as those might seem fairly jarring. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

How about this?

Business travellers may visit places that the average tourist could find dangerous.

No specific names to argue about and no Western-centeredness. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Dangerous is not always the reason, the city could also be boring by having little to see and do compared to a place which is all about tourism. Ypsilon (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, but a place being boring is not relevant in the "Stay safe" section, which is where the sentence in question is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

There it is,I could swear a similar sentence was in the lead section a few months ago but looking at the article history it seems to have been in Stay safe all the time. Perhaps we don't need to name specific cities (or countries). Ypsilon (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I've made the change. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)