Talk:Manchester Airport/Archive 1

Opening comments
''Formerly at Manchester (United Kingdom) Airport. Euwww!''

"Several" flights a day?? It's a bit more than that! I've watched planes come in and leave every 90 seconds at times in the summer. I'm taking the reference to EasyJet out, too, as as far as I know they've never operated from Manchester - they use Liverpool airport. Arwel

I decided to shorten the introduction and to place some of the information contained within the article elsewhere, as at present it seems too detailed, specifically for location. However, someone reverted it. What are other users opinions on this? It's worth noting that people from outside the UK may view this article. So would not in the opening statement be better saying something along the lines of Manchester Airport is located in the north west of England, XX miles south-west of Manchester City Centre and then go in to more detail elsewhere in the article? Sheliaval (talk) 09:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * North West England is non-specific. The airport is in Manchester and that's what the article should say. There is no need to expand on location as the airport is in Manchester, England, there is already a line saying part of the second runway is in Cheshire and that's all the location info needed. ┌ Joshii ┐└ chat ┘ 11:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have a bit of a problem with the idea of the city of Manchester bordering Cheshire - whilst this is technically true, the first is a borough and the second is a county, and so we're trying to compare apples with lemons. We should either go with boroughs or counties, not a mix between the two. Divy (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Photos
Does anyone have photos that could be used in the article? In particular in the infobox? Wangi 11:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Photo problem sorted and request for ground transport info
Sorted, the iconic archway named "Gateway to the World/North" has been uploaded and put as the picture, also could we have some information about planespotting and transport info. Medscin 09:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Ive updated transport info, all extras would be appreciated Medscin 09:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Introduction
Please do not add facts and figures to the Introduction. The Introduction simply tells the reader what the article is about and leads into the article. Additional information should go under a relevant heading so the reader can find it from Contents. Also, please check that any info you want to add is not already there! BlueValour 19:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Passenger numbers
The exisiting expansion is sourced here. Please do not add other figures without sourcing to an exact page, not a website home page. BlueValour 17:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources for latest month/period now added; also source for latest airport long range passenger forecasts. User:Ringwayobserver

Requested move
Manchester International Airport → Manchester Airport — Manchester Airport has been the official name since 1986 and is the name normally used when referring to the airport. It was previously a DMB and is now a redirect. BlueValour 23:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Strongly support above statement that the airport name is correctly 'Manchester Airport' - for example see hard copy 'Draft Master Plan to 2030' published in mid 2006 which uses 'Manchester Airport' throughout. User : Ringwayobserver 01 January 2007.

Survey

 * ''Add  * Support   or   * Oppose   on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~.


 * Oppose - personally I think the Manchester Airport page should still be a disambig. Moving this article could cause confusion with Manchester/Boston Regional in New Hampshire, which everyone from around here just calls Manchester Airport. DB (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC) (Withdrawn) DB (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support (my own nomination :-)). Any confusion is resolved easily by a dab link. There has been no such place as Manchester International Airport for 20 years. Since Manchester Airport is a redirect page, and anyone searching on the name is already taken to the UK airport, it is hard to see any good reason not to use it for the article. BlueValour 04:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Call it by its right name. BringBackOrangeBuses 17:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - If that's the official name then "Manchester International Airport" is both inaccurate and misleading. Since "Manchester Airport" redirects there anyway the move will have no impact on the other article. PC78 10:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - per PC78, pending other evidence presented by someone else. -Patstuarttalk 15:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - after further consideration. Regan123 17:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support- I agree- I was there on Tuesday and that was the name used. Thunderwing 21:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * ''Add any additional comments:
 * To avoid confusion why not call it Manchester Aiport, England? I have never seen it as Manchester International Aiport and I have lost track of the number of times I flew from there. Regan123 17:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Vegaswikian 07:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Airport location vs. area served
I am correct in thinking that the airport is located closest to Manchester but serves Greater Manchester. If I'm wrong can someone change the infobox. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Greater Manchester is the extended administrative area based on Manchester, so there is really no difference. The airport can acutally be classed as a regional airport and more correctly serves North West England and North Wales although is catchment area is far bigger. Probably best just to leave the infobox as it is. 08:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Abfab27 continues to change the area served field in the infobox to "Greater Manchester, Cheshire & Derbyshire". I belive this is not in the spirit intended at WP:AIRPORTS guidelines which implies a city or immediately surrounding area is the appropriate use of the served field. Clearly the catchment area of an airport will be much larger, but that is something quite different. Passengers from several counties such as Yorkshire, Lancashire, Cumbria, Northumberland etc... will clearly use Manchester Airport, but we can't include all these in the area served field within the infobox. I have reverted the change for now to "Greater Manchester" as previously agreed while the opinion of other editors can be made here. SempreVolando (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support your change SV as you say this is in accordance with WP:AIRPORTS, as a new user User:Abfab27 should really read WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK. MilborneOne (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan International Airlines
This is getting ridiculous. User:Jacklewis99 and many anon IPs has been adding "Chicago-O'Hare" and "New York-JFK" as a destination for Pakistan International Airlines. I just want to clear this once and for all. Can we list "Chicago-O'Hare" and "New York-JFK" as a destination? Bucs2004 22:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

yes we can because it is technically karachi to new york/chicago but they add a stop in manchester, meaning passengers at manchester can fly either ways

LAX on bmi
This is starting to get ridiculous. Bmi does not fly nor that they will flying to Los Angeles. The only flights that I have found between Manchester and Los Angeles are codeshared by United Airlines. So please stop adding Los Angeles as a destination, it will be reverted every time. Thanks! Bucs2004 16:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * BMI offer flights from Manchester to LAX but you have to connect at Chicago airport. └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 02:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Los Angeles is a codeshare and thus it should not to be listed per WP:Airports. Bucs2004 03:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

An Advertisment in the Manchester Evening News promoted flights from Manchester with KLM-Air France to Los Angeles and San Francisco as well as Chicago, New York JFK, Boston and Sanford. What is all that about?!

Abfab27 01:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Not seen the advert but in the past KLM have advertised north american services via Amsterdam. MilborneOne (talk) 11:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Cargo
Stop Deleteing Aeroflot-cargo!!! Jesus... how many times did you lot delete Fedex? Oh and lordy Lord and guess what??? Fedex are flying in to MAN. Who would of thought? I had plenty of messages saying it wasnt happening! And it is....

Aeroflot will be from September DC10-40F... Thanks!
 * 1. Provide a source.  Wiki is a place for sourced information.  If you can't provide a source, don't add it.  2.  When you have a source, it should be added with a starting date, not by itself, since it is not current service.  V-train 17:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

v-train... I think again you look a fool... need I still add a source for my again good information re: aeroflot? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.241.54.181 (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont need sources as everything i have added is true!!! Aeroflot are flying in to manchester are they not? YOU FOOL!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.166.19.58 (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Pictures For This Page
I'm thinking about uploading many pictures to this page. look at my user page user:samslipknot and i have many more yet to be uploaded. If anyone doesn't like them, I don't mind if you want to take the off. I know this page will only take the best.


 * Remember that this page is an encyclopedia article not a picture gallery, you may want to consider loading your images to Wikimedia Commons, we can then add a link from this page to the images in commons for readers to follow. Loading them in Commons also makes them available to other Wiki projects. MilborneOne 20:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Previous Airlines using Manchester
I have just removed this recently added section, I am not sure that previous airlines are particularly notable. The list could also end up being an extremely long list as the airport has been open 69 years so previous airlines could be in the order of 200 or 300 airlines. MilborneOne 19:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

RFP
I recently asked for page protection, it has been confirmed by MastCell, this was due to the unprecedented vandalism on the page. Unprotected from 1st October onwards.  Onnaghar  talk ! ctrb 14:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, well done. I asked a few days ago and was denied, I'm glad they decided differently this time.  I was getting tired of the same inaccurate edits getting added over and over again.  V-train 19:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with V-train. Good job well done! I am getting sick of the same incorrect edits over and over again. Bucs2004 19:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The Aeroflot flight is not direct from MOW as stated on the main page. Its comes via Hahn in Germany. It does not intend on making the service daily also. It intends to make the service 3 days a week and it will route MOW-HKG-MAN-MOW. Please change and update the correct info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.166.19.58 (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sources?  Onnaghar  talk ! ctrb ! er 15:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately, it seems the vandalism is starting again. I'll report it to RFP when next spout of vandalism starts.  Onnaghar  talk ! ctrb ! er 18:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Dragonair
It seems Dragonair is a disputed cargo operator at MAN but after searching the company websites flight plan it returned direct HKG-MAN routes, and this is definitely direct as I searched the Liverpool and other UK airports options available on the drop-down menu and it states that the cargo comes from Manchester or London-Heathrow.  Onnaghar  talk ! review 18:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The almost daily (except Friday) Dragonair 747Fs into Manchester are operating for their parent airline Cathay Pacific (normally as CPA039 inbound and CPA034 outbound). MilborneOne 19:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, on the Network page, it shows only Cathay Pacific Freighter service to MAN. V-train 19:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan International Airlines destinations MAN to ORD and JFK
I have many sources that do state that PIA fly to Chicago-O'hare and New York-JFK from Manchester.

Firstly: Pakistan International Airlines use Manchester as a Secondary hub and therefore will operate more destinations from Manchester than for instance, London-Heathrow. Secondly: I have checked the Manchester Airport website and that states that PIA do fly to these destinations from MAN. These destinations are also displayed on the Flight Information page. Finally: PIA have a strong presence at MAN, they operate roughtly 6 flight daily.

79.72.202.149 15:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you need better sources, as PIA stopped flying to Chicago. Airport websites are not exactly proactive when it comes to airlines' changes of service.  If you look at PIA's website, you would see they no longer have any flights to /from ORD.  As for the flights to JFK, PIA is not allowed to sell MAN-JFK, so JFK is not listed as a destination from MAN (which you have already been told more than once when you kept adding it and getting reverted).  V-train 16:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, please stop adding that. (I presume it's you because it's been brought up here and all "inclusionists of this subject have been IP). It has been long since established that PIA do not sell those routes, and I would request that you check the provenance of that source and whether it is outdated where Manchester once was a transatlantic stop. Rudget Contributions 12:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * On the Incheon and Gimhae Airports article, me and User:59.15.101.172 are having an edit conflict for Lufthansa serving the airports. I have deleted the domestic destinations fros the respective pages saying that the route was cabotage and that user readded the destination in seconds. I have posted a message on his talk page explaining the matter and he replied that those destinations should be included in the destinations lists (as to PIA to JFK from MAN). What should I do? The LH issue on those pages have appeared again. Many Thanks! Bucs2004 19:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We dont list destinations that you (as a passenger) cant go to, if anybody has problems then it should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports where if you want to change the rationale it can be discussed and a concensus can be reached. MilborneOne 20:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it still the case that PIA do not have rights to transport new PAX between MAN and JFK? Users keep adding this, but I can't find anywhere that allows tickets to be purchased. Views welcome! --Rcalvert (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 58.27.165.238 says that we should prove the negative, i.e. that tickets cannot be purchased anywhere, which I don't think is realistic. I suggest that if the user can give a single reference where tickets can be purchased then this can be added. I am not aware of anywhere that details these rights, although I know that PIA did apply for them and a study was conducted: http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/589/Regionalfifths_casestudy7.pdf No recent info though.

--Rcalvert (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK lets go for some real facts for a change. The fifth freedoms application to the CAA was for an extension to the rights for fifth freedoms, if you read the document you will see that it states that PIA already has fifth freedoms on some flights to Chicago and JFK. Chicago of course is no more.


 * The fact that a few spotters don't seem to be able to find a website where they can book flights does not prove the non-existence of the route and rights to sell tickets on it. Though just for the sake of clarity, tickets are booked through PIA by phone with their UK agents - I've enquired about it on one occasion. PIA do not actively sell tickets (i.e they do not really pursue the NW England transatlantic market but they will certainly sell you a ticket. Before anyone asks you won't find a "source" as PIAs website is frankly awful. Anyway, yes the last time I checked you could still buy tickets on PIA eastbound to JFK. AreaControl (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review
Just a note, see here for the peer review. Rudget Contributions 16:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Destinations
The destinations have just been moved to a sub-pages, was this discussed? MilborneOne 18:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No but it was suggested on the peer review and it makes total sense, it would be impossible to covert to prose and a table would just make the article look untidy. Now that the destination lists are in sub-articles, any vandalism targeted will be kept off the main page and will allow for more improvements to the article. Each section for the terminals now needs expansion with details of facilities and size etc. I think this article has a great base already and should not take too much to improve dramatically. └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 18:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also: The freight and future destinations sections are small enough lists to convert to prose quite easily. └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 18:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not convinced that one comment in peer review is all that is needed to move the contents. The destinations did conform to the style used in all other airport articles. So I am not sure where the need for the lists to be in prose comes from. I have asked for advice on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports. MilborneOne 19:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This article falls under the Greater Manchester WikiProject and has top priority for our editors. Therefore edits which make total sense do not need to be discussed or debated as we want articles within our project to develop quicker. May I refer you to WP:BE BOLD, you should be bold in your editing in order for articles to move on. The airport is large enough for enough information to be collected without the need for the list of destinations to be filling up the page. It is not as if the destinations have been lost, they are simple in sub-articles which are encouraged on topics which cover such a large scope. I would ask you to spend your time developing the article with more expansion if you wish to see it improved. └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 20:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears the individual terminal destinations lists articles are going to be deleted, so I will be bold and restore the destinations in this article. --Oakshade 22:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't. The majority of the deletes are for all the information to be deleted and not merged.  You are likely to be reverted. Regan123 23:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the changes you made as they are pre empting Articles for deletion/List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1 (2nd nomination). Consensus has changed as to their inclusion here. Regan123 00:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a discussion of deletion of the individual terminal aritles that were separated from this article. There is absolutely no consensus to delete the destination list to this article..--Oakshade 00:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nor is there a consensus at this article to have them.  A peer review suggested removal, an editor has removed and I agree with that removal. There is no longer a consensus at this article to have them.  As to the AfD there is a notable number of comments that this information is not encylopedic at all.  You may disagree, which I respect.  But consensus has changed here at Manchester Airport. Regan123 00:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Completely false. The Peer review/Manchester Airport/archive1 suggested creating a "daughter List article", not deleting the content.  The AfD's‎ are for deleting those newly created "daughter articles", not to delete the destination list.  Every commercial airport article has a destination list and you have made no case to single this article's destination list out for deletion. --Oakshade 00:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the AfD again. 8 to 4 suggest deleting this information full stop.  What happens on other articles is no justification for having it here. There is no consensus here to put this information into this article as it stands. Regan123 01:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's in the AfD for the specfic terminal article, not here. From the 1st paragraph of WP:CONSENSUS
 * "Consensus is typically reached as a natural product of the editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. In essence silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community."
 * In this article the destination list has been here since December of 2004 . It was only separated into new articles as suggested by the peer review, but the AfD's are for deleting those specific articles, not for deleting the destination list from this article.  You need to build a consensus for deleting the destination list here where the editors of this article are. It seems you are using the confusion of the possible deletion of those newly created articles to satisfy your admitted personal agenda of deleting airport destination lists without any discussion or consensus on this article whatsoever. --Oakshade 01:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: the following section is cut an pasted from Articles for deletion/List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1 (2nd nomination) and was not posted here by any editor.

(deindent). From the AfD : ''Delete as worthless trivia, which was my initial argument. But, to amplify: WP:IINFO. The airport itself is notable; a general summary of its destinations (x cities in y countries mainly in z regions) is desirable (and by the way, that already is in the article), but this level of detail is not. We are not a travel manual, but an encyclopedia. General information on the airport is notable; the fact that Pegasus Airlines flies to Bodrum out of its second terminal, or that Flybe goes to Norwich out of its third, is simply not encyclopedic material. Plus, no references, so this could be all made up.  One way ticket to Deletion City. Way too much detail - Wikipedia is not a travel guide.  *Delete for trying to imitate Expedia! (UTC) to pick out three of 8. I have no personal goal to remove it from every article. I don't think it is encyclopaedic here on this one article. At least one other editor agrees. There is no longer a consensus to have it here. What happens elsewhere is up to the editors of those articles - not my concern and I will leave it up to them. Regan123 01:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It may be acceptable for Wikitravel
 * Delete all - while the list of destinations may not be indiscriminate information, it is complete overkill and doesn't appear to have any encyclopaedic value whatsoever. I don't even think there is a sensible case for listing all destinations in a main airport article.''


 * Regan123, those editors opinions are from an AfD of different article, not here. This is not an indication of any consensus change. And by the way, signing for other editors is a violation of policy, so I deleted the signatures. --Oakshade 01:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't sign, their comments, merely cut and pasted, but can't be bothered to argue. But, and this is important, they are discussing the content on the sub articles.  Those comments apply to it, wherever it is. If it is delete as unencyclopaedic, then it is unencyclopaedic, whether in the main or sub article and consensus will have changed.  I have said that I will accept the consensus to keep and merge, keep or delete however it comes out. Regan123 14:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's where you're flat out wrong. If the result of the Articles for deletion/List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1 (2nd nomination) debate is delete, that only applies to that article, not the content of this one. Delete votes on an AfD for one article doesn't mean deleting content in another. --Oakshade 16:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To be clear. I am talking about the content. The comments are about the content, not the article(s). It has been described as Trivia & unencyclopaedic by quite a few editors.  You can't just ignore that.  Neither can anyone. And for unverified, unsourced material, it is up to the person adding it to justify it, not the other way around. Regan123 19:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The AfD about one article is only about that article, not the content of this one. There are exceptions about sources and every commercial airport article has destinations list, most of which (if not all) don't have sources.  That is what can't be ignored. You are attempting to use an AfD of another article to delete long stanting Consensus built material on this one.  I tell you what.  If you delete the destination list from any other major commercial airport article and nobody reverts, I'll stop repsonding to you.  I have a feeling you won't because you know it will get reverted as WP:CONSENSUS is strongly against removal of destination lists. --Oakshade 19:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (1) I am not interested in any other article - never have been - on an airport, only this one. The consensus has gone for this article - for the other airports I couldn't care less.  That much is clear.
 * (2) Are you saying all the AfD comments are flat wrong? For example while the list of destinations may not be indiscriminate information, it is complete overkill and doesn't appear to have any encyclopaedic value whatsoever. is commenting about the content or a separate article? Delete as worthless trivia - content or article? Delete per Wikipedia is not a travel guide, Wikipedia is not a directory of links (internal or external) and for being an unsourcable (as a list) and unmaintainable list. This is a useful way for travel agencies to organize information - it is not a useful way that encyclopedias organize information. - content or article?
 * (3) Does WP:V not apply to this article suddenly? From Jimbo Wells himself: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."
 * (4) And according to the further AfD comments now, this information is not published anywhere (Try finding the information here in another source. A few airports might provide it, but most don;t nor do the traval websites. ), so it looks like WP:OR which is even a bigger issue. Shouting at me (Bolding and underlining comments) is not necessary either.
 * (5) Policy doesn't get trumped by consensus. Never has done, never will do. Regan123 19:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * All destination content is easily verifiable. But since you so strongly and passionately believe that that destination lists violates policy, why are aren't you concerned with what you consider the extremely egregious violation of policy at the London Heathrow article?  If you truly believe what you are saying, you would delete the destination list there immediately.  "I'm not interested in any other article" doesn't cut it any more since you indicate you value adherence WP:V so much.  Again, the AfD discussion for is for the existence of a different article, not for the content of this one .  It just seems you're taking advantage of an AfD where mostly deletionists pay attention to to pretend that suddenly consensus has changed with the content of this and every other airport article.  Sorry, consensus has not changed.  --Oakshade 00:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If it so easily verifiable, why don't you do it and then half the problem goes away immediately? And The information is not notable, or verified. It has no place in the airport article, much less in it's own article just popped up on the AfD - another comment about the content not the location of an article. What about points (2), (4) & (5). And finally as this the Manchester Airport article, I am here talking about this article only. There is no consensus expressed in this discussion and at the AfD for this information to be included currently. Regan123 00:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The AfD is discussing the existence of THAT article. AfD stands for "Articles for Deletion", not "Content in Other Articles for Removal".   It doesn't matter if if all the editors there comment that they don't want the destination lists returned to this article, they are there to decide the existence of that article.  To change WP:CONSENSUS on THIS article, the editors of THIS article must build a consensus to change what consensus has decided should be here since 2004.  --Oakshade 00:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) So you're going to ignore comments you don't like? I like to get a wide perspective for a consensus. The consensus has gone here. And I see you haven't dealt with points (2), (4) & (5) still.Regan123 22:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The consensus not keep the destination list in this article has not moved here in any way. A small group of deletionists writing their opinion in an AfD on a different aritlce does not mean there has been a community conesnsus change.  There needs to be a major consensus change.  Reagan123, if you truly believed destination lists don't belong in airport articles and a different AfD shows consensus agrees, you would immediately delete them from any other article, but you wont' because you know CONSENSUS HAS NOT CHANGED REGARDING DESTINATIONS LISTS. Period.  It seems you are being very belligerent about this.  What will likely happen is there will be an edit war, then a RfC will occur and an arbitration will decide if a list that's in EVERY AIRPORT ARTICLE and one that's been in this article SINCE 2004 will remain.  I'm done trying to lecture you on WP:CONSENSUS which you clearly don't understand or refuse to adhere to. --Oakshade 23:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I can read consensus as often as you want, but consensus cannot override policy and guidelines. And lecturing people is not acceptable, neither is shouting all the time. Still no comments on points (2), (4) & (5) above? Once again, I don't care about other airport articles. I'm not interested in them.  I have an interest in this one. And point out where I have refused to adhere to consensus - that is a failure to WP:AGF. Regan123 00:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Bold is not shouting. To point to specifically which part (of many) of WP:CONSENSUS you refuse to adhere to... "No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined."   --Oakshade 01:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, by the way Reagan123, you claimed several times that Consensus has changed as your main argument to delete the destination lists   and now you're saying WP:CONSENSUS doesn't matter???  It's become impossible to even have a discussion with you as your position keeps changing. --Oakshade 02:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't know what's going on here, but all airports airticles have destinations. It's very useful and important and i personally come to Wikipedia to specifically look at them. Since when are they not allowed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.38.26.135 (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion about the veracity of the information as to Wikpedia policy and guidelines. Regan123 00:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What is going on???
I have this article on my watchlist and almost every change made now is the addition of images. This is not a gallery, though maybe we could add one? It appears to be IP addresses adding most of the images, they look nice but they are just filling up the article when it should be expanded with text! └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 13:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * All have been removed as possible copyright violations. Possible WP:AGF additions uploading non-self airliners.net (and other sites) images. MilborneOne 14:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

DESTINATIONS!!!
On my computer it appears that all the desinations on the sub-pages have disappeared! Whe I click on the link its says that no article of this type exsists! Whats going on??????????

86.1.8.218 (talk)
 * A user is attempting to delete the destinations without a change in community consensus. See below. --Oakshade (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
OK. The above AfD closed as delete all, not merge. So I have moved the lists here to talk about the way forward for them. I am going to suggest several options, though they are not by any means exclusive:
 * 1) - Reinsert the lists as they stand without any sources.
 * 2) - Reference them and then put them back
 * 3) - Summarise the major airlines and destinations with references
 * 4) - Talk about destinations and airlines in a general sense.

From the AfD these were the primary arguments:
 * - Merge the information back as every Airport article has them
 * - Delete the information under various policies (WP:NOT / WP:V)

For clarity I wanted these lists deleted after reading the articles. I would prefer inserting the information in option 3 above. These lists are currently unsourced information, which we are not supposed to have on Wikipedia. I have quoted Jimbo above on this matter. It is also stated that there is a community consensus to have this information. I can find no written consensus on this (please feel free to point me in the correct direction for this if there is). Having read WP:Consensus several times over the past few days, I have noted this: ''Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly - for instance, a local debate on a Wikiproject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. The project cannot decide that for "their" articles, said policy does not apply.'' It is also - from what I have observed - long standing that AfD is at the top of the community consensus tree (subject to WP:DRV). I asked about this at the village pump and got one definite response stating that you cannot reintroduce the information and one that says it depends. I have also had quoted at me No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined. The AfD means we have either two opposing ones or none as to the inclusion of the lists of destinations.

Also from the MOS I have noted Lists, which again refers to verification as being required.

I want to get a consensus here as to how the editors of Manchester Airport would like to proceed and am happy to agree to the consensus that emerges here. The questions that would seem to arise are: do we want this info in the article? Can we verify it? And following on, in what format do we include it? Regan123 (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Lists
Terminal 1
 * Aer Arann (Galway, Kerry, Sligo, Waterford)
 * Aer Lingus (Cork, Dublin)
 * Air Berlin (Hamburg, Paderborn)
 * Air Canada (Toronto-Pearson) [seasonal]
 * Air Transat (Calgary, Toronto-Pearson, Vancouver*) * [Note:Service to be transferred to Thomas Cook Airlines in Summer 2008]
 * AMC Airlines (Sharm-el-Sheik)
 * Aurigny Air Services (Guernsey)
 * BH Air (Burgas, Plovdiv, Sofia, Varna)
 * Centralwings (Krakow, Warsaw)
 * City Airline (Gothenburg-Landvetter)
 * Cyprus Airways (Larnaca, Paphos)
 * Cyprus Turkish Airlines (Dalaman)
 * Etihad Airways (Abu Dhabi)
 * Eurocypria (Heraklion, Larnaca, Paphos)
 * EuroManx (Isle Of Man)
 * Finnair (Helsinki)
 * Futura International Airways (Alicante, Arrecife, Dalaman, Ibiza, Larnaca, Las Palmas, Mahon, Palma de Mallorca, Reus, Tenerife-South)
 * Icelandair (Reykjavik-Keflavik)
 * Jet2.com (Alicante, Amsterdam, Budapest, Chambery, Faro, Geneva, Gran Canaria, Ibiza, Lanzarote, Malaga, Murcia, Nice, Palma, Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Pisa, Prague, Rome-Fiumicino, Tenerife-South, Toulouse, Valencia, Venice)
 * Libyan Airlines (Tripoli)
 * Lufthansa (Frankfurt, Munich)
 * Lufthansa Regional operated by Eurowings (Düsseldorf)
 * Lufthansa Regional operated by Lufthansa CityLine (Hamburg, Munich)
 * Monarch Airlines (scheduled) (Alicante, Almeria, Arrecife, Barcelona, Faro, Ibiza, Jerez [ends November 4], Mahon, Malaga, Murcia [begins February 08, 2008], Palma, Tenerife)
 * Monarch Airlines (charter) (Arrecife, Calgary, Cancún, Catania, Chania, Corfu, Dalaman, Faro, Fuerteventura, Goa, Grenoble, Heraklion, Hurghada, Ibiza, Kittila, Kos, Las Palmas, Luxor, Mahon, Male, Naples, Orlando-Sanford, Palma, Paphos, Preveza, Punta Cana, Rhodes, Salzburg, Shram-El-Sheik, Skiathos, Sofia, Tenerife, Thessalonika, Venice, Zakynthos)
 * MyTravel (Agadir, Alicante, Almeria, Antalya, Arrecife, Bergamo, Bodrum, Burgas, Calgary, Cancún, Corfu, Dalaman, Djerba, Faro, Fuerteventura, Gerona, Goa, Grenoble, Heraklion, Hurghada, Ibiza, Kalamata, Kefallinia, Kos, La Romana, Larnaca, Las Palmas, Las Vegas, Luxor, Mahon, Malaga, Mallorca (Majorca), Malé, Malta, Monastir, Montego Bay, Naples, Orlando-Sanford, Palma, Paphos, Puerto Plata, Reus, Rhodes, Rimini, Salvador- Dois De Julho, Salzburg, Sharm El Sheik, Tenerife, Toronto-Pearson, Turin, Vancouver, Varadero, Zakynthos)
 * Olympic Airlines (Athens)
 * Ryanair (Dublin, Shannon)
 * Scandinavian Airlines (Copenhagen, Stockholm-Arlanda, Oslo)
 * SkyEurope (Bratislava, Krakow)
 * Spanair (Madrid, Barcelona)
 * Swiss International Air Lines
 * Swiss International Air Lines operated by Helvetic Airways (Zürich)
 * Swiss International Air Lines operated by Swiss European Air Lines (Basel/Mulhouse, Geneva [begins December 15])
 * Thomas Cook Airlines (Alicante, Almeria, Antalya, Arrecife, Banjul, Barbados, Bodrum, Burgas, Calgary, Cancún, Catania, Cayo Coco, Corfu, Dalaman, Faro, Fuerteventura, Fuchal, Gerona, Heraklion, Holguin, Hurghada, Ibiza, Innsbruck, Izmir, Jerez, Kefallinia, Kos, Larnaca, Las Palmas, Lyon, Mahon, Malaga, Malta, Monastir, Montreal, Orlando-Sanford, Ottawa, Palma, Paphos, Preveza, Puerto Plata, Reus, Rhodes, Rovaniemi, Salzburg, Sharm-El-Sheik, Skiathos, Sofia, Split, Tenerife, Thessalonika, Toronto-Pearson, Toulouse, Turin, Vancouver, Varadero, Verona, Zakynthos)
 * TUIfly (Cologne/Bonn, Hannover, Stuttgart)
 * Turkish Airlines (Istanbul-Atatürk)
 * Volare Airlines (Milan-Malpensa)

Terminal 2
 * Adria Airways (Ljubljana)
 * Air Atlanta Icelandic (Orlando-Sanford)
 * Airblue (Islamabad)
 * Air France (Paris-Charles de Gaulle)
 * Air Malta (Malta)
 * Astraeus (Agadir, Banjul-Yundum, Brescia, Calvi, Chambery, Dalaman, Innsbruck, Izmir, Kefallinia, Kos, Lourdes-Tarbes, Lyon, Olbia, Palma de Mallorca, Paphos, Pula, Sal, Salzburg, Sharm-El-Sheik, Skiathos, Taba, Tenerife-South, Varna, Verona, Zakynthos)
 * Belavia (Minsk)
 * BritishJET operated by Hello (Malta)
 * Bulgaria Air (Sofia)
 * Continental Airlines (Newark)
 * Czech Airlines (Prague)
 * Delta Air Lines (Atlanta, New York-JFK)
 * Emirates (Dubai)
 * First Choice Airways (Agadir, Alicante, Almeria, Antalya, Arrecife, Banjul-Yundum, Barbados, Bodrum, Bourgas, Cancún, Cozumel, Cayo Coco, Chania, Colombo, Corfu, Dalaman, Faro, Fuerteventura, Funchal, Geneva, Goa, Grenoble, Hassi Messaoud, Heraklion, Huatulco, Ibiza, Innsbruck, Kefalonia, Kittila, Kos, Las Palmas, Mahon, Malaga, Male, Malta, Mitilini-Lesbos, Mombasa, Monastir, Montego Bay, Naples, Nassau, Orlando-Sanford, Palma de Mallorca, Paphos, Porlamar, Preveza, Puerto Plata, Puerto Vallarta, Punta Cana, Reus, Rhodes, Rovaniemi, Salvador (Dois De Julho), Salzburg, Santorini, Samana, Sharm-El-Sheik, Skiathos, Sri Lanka, Taba, Tenerife, Thessaloniki, Toulouse, Turin, Varadero, Varna, Verona, Zakynthos)
 * Flyglobespan (Calgary [seasonal], Toronto-Hamilton, Vancouver [seasonal])
 * KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (Amsterdam)
 * KLM Cityhopper (Amsterdam)
 * LTE International Airways (Arrecife, Palma, Tenerife-South)
 * Luxor Air (Sharm-El-Sheik)
 * Onur Air (Antalya, Bodrum, Dalaman, Ercan)
 * Pakistan International Airlines (Islamabad, Karachi, Lahore)
 * Pegasus Airlines (Bodrum, Dalaman)
 * Qatar Airways (Doha)
 * Saudi Arabian Airlines (Geneva, Jeddah, Riyadh)
 * Singapore Airlines (Singapore)
 * Syrian Arab Airlines (Damascus)
 * Thomsonfly (Agadir, Alicante, Antalya, Arrecife, Barbados, Bodrum, Bourgas, Cancún, Cape Verde (Summer 2008), Chania, Corfu, Dalaman, Dubrovnik, Fort Lauderdale, Faro, Figari, Fuerteventura, Funchal, Geneva, Gerona, Heraklion, Hurghada, Ibiza, Kavala, Kefallinia, Larnaca, Las Palmas, Lisbon, Luxor, Lyon, Mahon, Malaga, Malta, Monastir, Montego Bay, Naples, Orlando-Sanford, Palma, Paphos, Pisa, Puerto Plata, Pula, Punta Cana, Reus, Rhodes, Rovaniemi,Saint Lucia, Salzburg, Samos, Santorini, Sharm-El-Sheik, Skiathos, Sofia, Taba, Tel Aviv, Tenerife-North, Tenerife-South, Thessaloniki, Toulouse, Turin, Varna, Venice, Verona, Zakynthos)[[Image:Zoom Airlines Boeing 767-300ER At Manchester International Airport.jpg|thumb|right| A [[Zoom Airlines]] Boeing 767-300ER at Manchester Airport]]
 * US Airways (Philadelphia)
 * Virgin Atlantic Airways (Barbados, Orlando, St Lucia [seasonal])
 * Zoom Airlines (Calgary, Toronto-Pearson, Vancouver)
 * XL Airways (Alicante, Antalya, Arrecife, Barbados, Bodrum, Burgas, Chambery, Chania, Corfu, Dalaman, Faro, Fuerteventura, Funchal, Geneva, Grenoble, Heraklion, Hurghada, Ivalo, Kalamata, Kavala, Kefallinia, Kos, Larnaca, Las Palmas, London-Gatwick, Mahon, Malaga, Mikonos, Mitilini-Lesbos, Monastir, Murcia, Ovda, Orlando-Sanford, Palma, Paphos, Plovdiv, Preveza, Rhodes, Samos, Santorini, Sharm-El-Sheik, Skiathos, Tenerife, Volos, Zakynthos.)

Terminal 3
 * Air Southwest (Bristol, Plymouth)
 * American Airlines (Chicago-O'Hare)
 * bmi (Aberdeen, Antigua, Barbados, Chicago-O'Hare, Las Vegas, London-Heathrow, Lyon)
 * bmibaby (Alicante, Belfast-International, Bordeaux, Cork, Knock, Jersey, Malaga, Newquay, Palma de Mallorca, Perpignan, Prague)
 * bmi Regional (Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow-International)
 * British Airways (London-Gatwick, London-Heathrow, New York-JFK)
 * British Airways operated by GB Airways (Heraklion, Innsbruck [begins December 30], Malta, Paphos, Tenerife -South)
 * British Airways operated by Sun Air of Scandinavia (Billund)
 * Brussels Airlines (Brussels)
 * Eastern Airways (Inverness, London-Stansted)
 * Flybe (Belfast-City, Bergerac, Brest, Brussels, Dusseldorf, Edinburgh, Exeter, Frankfurt, Glasgow-International, Guernsey, Hanover, Isle of Man, Jersey, La Rochelle, Limoges, Milan-Malpensa, Norwich, Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Rennes, Southampton)
 * VLM Airlines (Antwerp, London-City, Luxembourg, Rotterdam)

Out of Policy Removal of Destinations
The Destination lists were in this article since December of 2004 with not one editor removing it. That an extremely strong indication of community consensus. Every Commercial airport aritlce has a destination list. Less than three weeks ago, a peer review of this article suggested separating the destination lists into separate "daughter articles" for length purposes. Those article were created and the long standing destination lists were separated from this article to those newly formed articles which almost immediately went to AfD. Th The AfDs were about those "daughter articles" The result of the AfDs were to specifically delete those articles, not to remove content from this one.--Oakshade (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Air Southwest destination - Manchester - Newquay
Air Southwest to operate a Manchester - Newquay route. Check the Manchester Airport Website! 79.72.188.192 —Preceding comment was added at 18:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * But note it is not a direct flight it goes via Bristol. MilborneOne 18:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I just say that you lot are using the manchester airport website too much!!! It is not always up to date, and the destinations aren't always direct routes. For Example- LAX (Los Angeles) is listed as a destination (served by US Airways) on the website. This isn't at all a direct route, but involves catching a completely different service from Philadelphia (where US flies to) Robincross224 (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. the manchester airport website shows flights being offered at that moment, so for example if you look up Thomas cook on the airports website, it will list only the flights for that particular time of the season, and especially over winter that could be half of the destinations they actually fly too. the airports website is basically reliable for scheduled traffic but very unreliable for charteded flights —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danfearn77 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Cathay pacific passenger service
Am i missing something about this major 'development' as everytime i'm on this article there seems to be an insert about cathay pacific restarting its passenger flights. I knew there CX were to commence a service via moscow back in 2006 but this fell through. Has there been anything reputable written anywhere to suggest a new service in 2008? Danzinin (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Im not sure, it was listed but when it surfaced that Oasis Hong Kong airlines were planning a route to manchester from Hong Kong i think they cancelled that idea. OHKA is low budget airline so CX probably saw no point in providing a service too.

Cathay Pacific and Afriqiyah Airways services
Have Cathay Pacifc restarted their service to Hong Kong ? and have Afriqiyah Airways commenced services to Tripoli from Manchester as stated in the "Future Airlines" column?
 * No and no, in a nutshell. Cathay Hong Kong still to be formally announced and Afriqiyah Airways Tripoli service remains subject to approval. SempreVolando (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

New Destinations: Canadian Affair
Hi there- I've just deleted the Canadian Affair entry (to Toronto), as Canadian Affair is not an airline. It is essentially a travel agent, who advertise and sell Air Transat, Thomas Cook and MyTravel flights to Canada. They have also since been bought by air transat. All three have operated services to YYZ for ages, so what was this entry meant to mean?

Robincross224 (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You were right to remove it, some people add in entries like this in good faith because they think they are airlines. MilborneOne (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

aircraft movements, or take your pick....
The article says in 2006 Manchester had a recorded 234,835 aircraft movements, but elsewhere in WP Busiest_airports_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_total_passenger_traffic the figure for the same year is 229,729. Not a big difference, certainly not big enough to change MAN's rankings, but a discrepancy all the same .... --Jotel (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * CAA Data (2006 - Airports - Table 3.1 ) states 229,729 aircraft movements, in line with WP Busiest_airports_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_total_passenger_traffic. Not sure where the figure of 234,835 originates from. Should probably be changed for consistency, since we have a suitable reference. SempreVolando (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The figure of 234,835 comes from ref 3 in the article, Manchester Airport Consultative Committee's document, which, a priori at least, looks as authoritative as the one mentioned above. --Jotel (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the cited reference quotes a figure of 229,729, the same as the CAA data! I'm not sure where the 234,835 comes from, but I suspect it is the MACC figure from 2005. So it's just the figure in the article which needs updating. SempreVolando (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ I took the liberty of updating the article - didn't change the reference from MACC. SempreVolando (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Future airlines and future destinations
Please can this be put back onto the page. I know the destinations are already listed but it is much easier to glance at the future destinations rather than look through all the terminal lists —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danfearn77 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that it adds any extra value to the article - entries are often unreferenced or are speculation. MilborneOne (talk) 12:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

im not so sure. i have added to this section a few times and all routes are genuine. i agree that they need to be referenced. most of the time it is on manchester airports website under 'new routes'. its just easier to look at. the future airlines i think is interesting but again they need to be referenced —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.13.234 (talk) 16:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The previous future airlines section was pure speculation and not appropriate on Wikipedia (no sources), future routes was simply unnecessary duplication of new route information already contained in the Airlines and destinations section. This has been removed from other airport articles for this reason, but also because as new routes are added / commence / dates are changed it requires editors to not only change the usual information in the Airlines and destinations sections but also make an identical change in this non-standard section (not mentioned in WP:AIRPORT). So it doesn't make sense to have it on this airport page, please comment here rather than re-adding without consensus. Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Passenger numbers for the start of 2008
Does anyone know where we could get passenger numbers for the airport for the first few months of this year? i have looked on the CAA website and other places but i cant find any info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danfearn77 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Source for Infobox
The current source for this information is ais.org.uk This is contrary to WP's policy of not using sources requiring registration. World Aeronautical Database worldaerodata.com is registration-free, but not up to date. Any suggestions for a replacement? --Jotel (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Although the web site need registrations the source document (AIP) is a printed/published document. MilborneOne (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Protected
Right, after seeing this pop up on recent changes far too much, I have protected it due to edit warring. This is not helpful, several parties in this were in flagrant breach of the 3 revert rule. Discuss your issues here. Woody (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a bit heavy-handed don't you think? There are many editors on here who want to edit the article and you have stopped progress. Un-protect it. ┌ Joshii ┐└ chat ┘ 19:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not until discussion has taken place to stop the edit warring that plagued this article for the last hour before protection. It is either this or blocks. Though I notice that one party has yet to enter into the discussion. It was this or the possibiliy of blocks for those involved. Woody (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Unprotected now on the strict proviso that the offending text is not touched until discussion has taken place. Regards. Woody (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Signs
User User:Abfab27 added information on the airport signage being changed, I have reverted it as being non-notable. The user has added it again and I have reverted once more with an invitation to discuss. Comment welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support removal of the text "The airport has also begun rebranding the signage in each of the terminals, particually in the newly refurbished areas from the outdated white and blue to a more corporate black and yellow." within the Future Airport Expansion section as non-encyclopedic, non-notable information, with an element of personal point-of-view relating to the adequacy of the previous signage in violation of WP:NPOV. SempreVolando (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: I would read WP:RECENT as well. Woody (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a rebranding of the airport is significant enough to be in the article. ┌ Joshii ┐└ chat ┘ 22:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Then find a reliable sourece which says so, and present it here. A description of wy the rebranding was doen, what it actually involves other than changing colors, and what it is intended to accomplish would be far mor informative the just a desription of color changes. A pair of images showing the old and new signes would be a lot more illustrative of the color changes desription, and don't need commentary on "outdatedness" either. The latter is what is being referred to as "with an element of personal point-of-view relating to the adequacy of the previous signage in violation of WP:NPOV." And Original research, I might add. - BillCJ (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this represents broad consensus to support removal of the text from the article for now, particularly in view of the spelling mistake contained and the number of Wikipedia guidelines it appears to violate. I have therefore removed the paragraph, while of course we can continue to discuss here whether the changing colour of the airport signage is of any encyclopedic interest. SempreVolando (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Nth busiest airport in lead
Following on from recent edits by Dbx54 and BillCJ... I recently changed this paragraph of the lead from:
 * "In 2007, Manchester Airport handled 22,112,625 passengers with 222,703 aircraft movements, making it the busiest airport in the United Kingdom in passenger numbers outside of london, fourth (after London Heathrow, London Gatwick and London Stansted) and third in terms of total aircraft movements (after London Heathrow and London Gatwick). "

To:
 * "In 2007, Manchester Airport handled 22,112,625 passengers with 222,703 aircraft movements, making it the fourth busiest airport in the United Kingdom in passenger numbers and third in terms of total aircraft movements. "

This is much more concise and much more honest language - the previous version was basically "Manchester Airport is the busiest airport in the United Kingdom, except those busier than it". If anyone wants information on the airports which are busier than it then the linked article gives them it - there is no lead for that in the lead of this article. Thanks/wangi (talk) 08:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with the change, the revised paragraph is a better reflection of the relative size of the airport in the UK, London Airports cannot be excluded simply to try and call Manchester "the busiest, apart from the rest"! The previous statement was also too complicated for a lead section. SempreVolando (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

History section and second runway dates (not about the politics)
The history section mentions two RAF runways being skimpily constructed, and much later talks about the building of the airport's "second runway". This leaves the reader wondering when the second RAF runway fell out of use; indeed, it's also unstated whether in fact either of the RAF runways became the commercial airport's original one runway. Could somebody with knowledge of the history clarify it please? – Kieran T  (' talk ') 17:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Air Canada
I think Air Canada have ceased direct operations to Manchester, I rung Air Canada to try and book a flight the other day, and they said they don't do direct flights in the summer (Which was the only time they did flights, as they were seasonal) 90.198.250.227 (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Info box
Someone changed the location from Speke to Greater Manchester. Most airports pages state their exact location, rather than a general location e.g. Liverpool states Speke as it's location, Stansted states Uttlesford as it's location, even an airport as large as Barcelona states it location as El Prat de Llobregat. Only the London airports seem to give more general location information. Sheliaval (talk) 09:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I changed the name from Ringway (not Speke) to Greater Manchester as I thought it gave the reader a better idea where the airport was, the template guide says that location is Name of the town or city where the airport is located. The original airfield was named after a local village of Ringway but the airport is not actually located in or at that village (which is to the West of the airfield) so could be misleading. Anybody have other suggestions or comments. MilborneOne (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The airport is in Manchester and Greater Manchester so either are fine for me. Ringway is just a parish and as stated above it's not even in Ringway so it's better to give a place name someone has heard of yet still being accurate. ┌ Joshii ┐└ chat ┘ 11:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I meant Ringway not Speke. Sheliaval (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

SATA International
These guys fly to the azores but there is a technical stop in london. however u can book tickets from manchester to the azores so maybe it should be listed. the airline flies here it would be different if it were a codeshare agreement but its notDanfearn77 (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Jade Air Cargo????
This has been added a few times, but if you go0 on their website they state several new destination but manchester is not listed as one of them. has anyone got a source for this info???Danfearn77 (talk) 10:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Futura-Lufthansa event
As I and others appear to be removing the minor collison between a Futura and Lufthansa aircraft on the 5 August at least once a day. I have asked those adding to discuss but a number of IP users just keep adding. This event is not really notable or uncommon but as this add/revert cycle has been going on for a few days looking for other opinions. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Swiss International Airlines
Can people leave Swiss the destinations alone! Swiss has three destinations from Manchester which are Basel, Geneva and Zurich (which is both operated by Swiss and Helvitic airlines) If you are still unsure check the Swiss website!


 * Although I haven't edited the Swiss stuff before, I've checked Swiss Webiste... No direct flight to Geneva, only Basel and Zurich so I'll remove Geneva. Maybe it's a "coming soon", in which case it's the norm to indicate that. e.g. [from 1 sept] --Rcalvert (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

AA and VS new routes?
I noticed someone added a JFK route from American Airlines and a Las Vegas route form Virgin is this true? I removed this because I could not see any evidance of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.88.81 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 25 November 2008
 * Then why did you undo my edit if can not find any evidence of this? That is why I removed it in the first place. Someone also added a DTW route for DL. I removed it as well since I cannot find any evidence of this route starting. Cashier freak (talk) 06:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

PIA New York, the facts
Copy/pasted my reply from above thread.


 * OK lets go for some real facts for a change. The fifth freedoms application to the CAA was for an extension to the rights for fifth freedoms, if you read the document you will see that it states that PIA already has fifth freedoms on some flights to Chicago and JFK. Chicago of course is no more.


 * The fact that a few spotters don't seem to be able to find a website where they can book flights does not prove the non-existence of the route and rights to sell tickets on it. Though just for the sake of clarity, tickets are booked through PIA by phone with their UK agents - I've enquired about it on one occasion. PIA do not actively sell tickets (i.e they do not really pursue the NW England transatlantic market) but they will certainly sell you a ticket. Before anyone asks you won't find a "source" as PIAs website is frankly awful. Anyway, yes the last time I checked you could still buy tickets on PIA eastbound to JFK. AreaControl (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

long stay car parking
We recently flew from Manchester airport,i dropped off my fellow passengers at departures and went to find the long stay carpark which i had difficulty finding as it was badly sign posted and took a wrong turn up the M56,drove several miles before i could turn round and re entered the airport,drove up to departures again and second time found the long stay car park.I recommend much clearer signage on the roundabout to direct cars in the right direction to prevent people from doing the same as me.It would be nice to hear from you. Regards Peter Grantham —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.51.230 (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Airport name infobox
Is there any particular reason why the airport name continues to be removed from the infobox? I don't believe this was discussed to remove it. Snoozlepet (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Direct Flights only?
Is it necessary to include flights which aren't direct for Example Fly Hellas includes Athens, Baghdad, Ebril, Sulainiyah, yet there is only one direct flight to Athens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0555 (talk • contribs)
 * Per WP:AIRPORTS, certain "direct" flights are listed as long as it has the same flight number, does not go thru a hub of an airline, and has the same aircraft on all segments. Snoozlepet (talk) 04:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes i understand what you mean because Singapore Airlines is an example from Manchester Airport which stops in Munich. Surely with Fly Hellas this is different as its not possible to go to Athens and be on the same flight to Baghdad, and Ebrill at the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0555 (talk • contribs)

Airlines and destinations
Biman Bangladesh there are currently no flights but maybe in the future as Manchester is listed on their website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0555 (talk • contribs) Tunisair timetable and Manchester airport guide only lists Monastir and not Enfidha as their destination from Manchester. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0555 (talk • contribs)


 * Also, please do not change Delta service to JFK to "[ends 10 September]". The flight is zeroed out in the booking engine through April 2012, then the nonstop does appear to be bookable all of April 2012. So therefore, JFK is a seasonal destination for Delta from Manchester. It is not ending nor it is not year-round. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out as well and sorry i forgot to sign0555 (talk 18.17, 4 June 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.163.9 (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Monarch Term 2?
Is Monarch really moving to Terminal 2 from Nov 8? i can't find anything on the internet to support it? Thanks Wilbur2012(talk) 19:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)