Talk:Manchester Airport/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Opening comments 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Photo problem sorted and request for ground transport info

message: 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)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Passenger numbers 

message: :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)
thread_title: Survey

message: :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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Airport location vs. area served

message: 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)
thread_title: Pakistan International Airlines

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Cargo

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pictures For This Page 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Previous Airlines using Manchester 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Sources? Onnaghar   talk ! ctrb ! er 15:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:RFP|RFP]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Also, on the Network page, it shows only Cathay Pacific Freighter service to MAN.  V-train 19:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dragonair

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What is going on??? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  DESTINATIONS!!! 

message: ===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:
# - Reinsert the lists as they stand without any sources.
# - Reference them and then put them back
# - Summarise the major airlines and destinations with references
# - 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 Wikipedia: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)
thread_title:  Destinations - The Way Forward 

message: 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:
# - Reinsert the lists as they stand without any sources.
# - Reference them and then put them back
# - Summarise the major airlines and destinations with references
# - 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 Wikipedia: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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: 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)
thread_title: Out of Policy Removal of Destinations

message: 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)
replies: text: But note it is not a direct flight it goes via Bristol. MilborneOne 18:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air Southwest destination - Manchester - Newquay 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cathay pacific passenger service 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cathay Pacific and Afriqiyah Airways services 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New Destinations: Canadian Affair 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  I took the liberty of updating the article - didn't change the reference from MACC. SempreVolando (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  aircraft movements, or take your pick.... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Future airlines and future destinations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Passenger numbers for the start of 2008 

message: 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)
replies: text: Although the web site need registrations the source document (AIP) is a printed/published document. MilborneOne (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for Infobox 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Note: I would read WP:RECENT as well. Woody (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a rebranding of the airport is significant enough to be in the article. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 22:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Signs

message: 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). CAA 2007 Annual Airport Statistics"
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. CAA 2007 Annual Airport Statistics"
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Nth busiest airport in lead 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History section and second runway dates (not about the politics) 

message: 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)
thread_title: Air Canada

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Info box

message: 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)
thread_title: SATA International

message: 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)
thread_title: Jade Air Cargo????

message: 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)
thread_title:  Futura-Lufthansa event 

message: 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)
thread_title: Swiss International Airlines

message: 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)
thread_title: AA and VS new routes?

message: 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)
thread_title: PIA New York, the facts

message: 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)
thread_title:  long stay car parking 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Airport name infobox 

message: 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)
thread_title: Direct Flights only?

message: 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)
thread_title: Airlines and destinations

message: 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)
thread_title:  Monarch Term 2?