Ten busiest domestic routes[edit]

Hi, Some of the destinations such as Isle of Man, Jersey & Guernsey in the Ten busiest domestic routes list are not domestic cities. The above listed are not in the United Kingdom and shouldn't be listed. --JetBlast (talk) 11:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Certain routes[edit]

Hi. I've noticed that certain routes e.g. all of the BA CityFlyer routes with the exception of Cagliari and Olbia as well as all BMI (not inc regional or London Heathrow) routes. I have checked both British Airways and BMI websites, and they do not appear to exist. I hope there isn't this problem for other airlines. Please may someone either find a reference to this or I will delete these routes on the destinations sections soon. --MJLRGS (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Already deleted the two BA CityFlyer routes and added Chartered, but not the BMI routes yet. If someone thinks that they are still being chartered, please speak. --MJLRGS (talk) 12:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just removed the supposed BMI route to Vienna which doesn't exist, although someone obviously wishes it did. Thanks, PamukSoundystem (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Continental & United[edit]

Hey guys. Continental & United apparently become one airline from the night of the 30th November. Shall we change it to United airlines on that day? --MKY661 (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Continental & United[edit]

Hey guys. Continental & United apparently become one airline from the night of the 30th November. Shall we change it to United airlines on that day? --MKY661 (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you have a source for this?? Snoozlepet (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is now confirmed here http://news.yahoo.com/pilots-united-gets-single-operating-certificate-231520061.html. Snoozlepet (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even though Continental has ceased to exist as a separate legal entity, flights between Manchester and Newark are still operating under CO flight numbers. Continental's website is showing availability on CO20/CO100 (EWR-MAN) and CO21/CO101 (MAN-EWR) until December 31, 2012. It would be clearer to readers (especially those not familiar with the minutiae of the UA-CO merger) to continue to designate this as a Continental Airlines service until such time as the rebranding process, including retirement of the relevant CO flight numbers, has been completed. Jpfowler27 (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Runways[edit]

The runways are 23R and Left and 05R and Left. Am I right thinking that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.11.24 (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As stated in the article. 05L/23R and 05R/23L.--Sal73x (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hubs[edit]

Does anyone have any sources to backup the airlines that use the airport as a hub please? --JetBlast (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

People Keep Changing Terminals[edit]

Hello. I Have noticed recently that some recent edits have been involving changing the Terminals round so I have decided to add a reference for this so it can be prevented, hopefully. Thanks --MKY661 (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Charter Airlines[edit]

Airlines such as Onur Air and Small Planet Airlines should be clearly stated that they are charter flights and should state the travel company that the airlines is operating for. When these airlines stop operating for the travel company for instance Thomson it is clear for those people editing on whether to remove the flight from the page.0555 (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Plane Mad[edit]

Do not use the Plane Mad website as a credible source because it can be edited by anybody. Make sure that there are at least two news articles confirming the route, even major websites can make mistakes too.0555 (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

X ray body scanners[edit]

You can now safely fly from the airport without facing a compulsory dose of x-rays. They had to remove the machines last September, presumably because they are dangerous. 86.23.91.230 (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Manchester Airport on Wikivoyage[edit]

I'm currently attempting to bring the Manchester Airport page (here) on Wikimedia's new Wikivoyage travel guide up to speed. If any of you feel inclined to have look or have a play, please do! For more information about the differences between WP and WV, you can see a guide here. --Nicholasjf21 (talk) 09:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thomson bird strike[edit]

Is there any reason that the 2007 Thomson 757 bird strike isn't featured in the "Accidents and Incidents" section? Fsxfaulder (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was not really notable for inclusion. MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yet TCX314 is included in the article? Fsxfaulder (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes missed that thanks, I have removed that as it is not notable either. MilborneOne (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New maps and additional tables[edit]

Am I the only person to think recent updates to the page have cluttered it and, ultimately, rendered it unreadable? Maybe it's my screen, but not only has the destinations table seemed to have narrowed, but there are additional tables and various maps giving extraneous data, interrupting the flow of the page. Can we not please agree on a return to how the page was prior to these changes? Pigduck (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There now appear to be several more adjustments and re-adjustments which have meant that some destinations are being cut off from the list entirely, just for the sake of maps which are neither common to other airport pages or mandatory. I do not wish for this to resort to an edit war. Pigduck (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History section[edit]

The first paragraph of the history section is garbled. I went through the last few section revisions and couldn't find the edit that caused the garbling (and it wasn't immediately apparent what has been lost). Unfortunately, I'm short on time right now so don't have time to fix but maybe someone else would be able to dig? ChgoEditor (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Future expansion[edit]

Ive just spent about 15-20 minutes updating the 'future airports expansion' paragraph, in line with the press releases from Manchester Airport on 2nd June 2015.

This is not only to give the page the latest information, but, the current paragraph is no longer relevent.

For example:

Pier B at T1 is no longer to be 're-alligned', as it will be demolished T2 will no longer have a satellite terminal T3 will be expanded as part of the project.

So, why was the passageway I created deleted considering it was all factual and backed up with the relevent sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.214.121 (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Manchester Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Manchester Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zagreb with Monarch not seasonal.[edit]

Zagreb is a year round destination for Monarch and can be booked on their pages. please adapt if possible. thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.183.103.17 (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, Zagreb is indeed seasonal with a months break in service Futurepilot1999 (talk) 06:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As the route operates every calendar month of the year, this is regarded as a year-round route following the broadly accepted principle we use. See WT:AIRPORTS. Restored route to the main (non-seasonal) section. SempreVolando (talk) 09:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2017[edit]

The trains that operate is also arriva trians from manchester to llandudno or holyhead. Thomson787 (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested edit[edit]

NoIPMakerLemons (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC) Hi, can someone add in the right top summary corner that thomas cook has an operating base here? Source is https://www.thomascookairlines.com/en/our-company/about-us.jsp. ThanksReply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Manchester Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About deletion of the "Criticism" paragraph[edit]

Hello everyone. This morning I added a paragraph titled "Criticism" to the article, and it has been deleted (please check diffs). As I am not experienced on English Wikipedia, I am kindly asking for advice as to how I could integrate the issues that are present at Manchester Airport. I do admit that there is personal frustration in my edit, but this is not a personal problem: when the mayor of Manchester needed to intervene regarding the queues and the lack of consideration for disabled passengers, it is a broader issue that the public needs to know about. The links I have provided are valid links from local and national UK media (e.g. BBC), except for the Skytrax forum page, which I admit should be omitted. Please offer guidance, as I do not want to revert the IP edit and enter into an edit war. Thanks very much. Saintfevrier (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As there was no response to my post here on the talk page, I will take the liberty to inform that an IPv6 user has twice reverted my edits: as I have openly mentioned above, the reason I edited this article was indeed due to personal frustration; however, the issues with Manchester Airport go much further, so I changed the name of the paragraph to Capacity Issues (as the references point in that direction, as regards to the shortcomings of the airport.) Regarding the comment of the IPv6 editor in the summary of his reverts (copy-paste) "No other airport page has this section nor is it required to", I would really like him/her to point to a page that indicates what can or cannot be included on an "airport page" on Wikipedia. My experience as an editor is that well-referenced, neutral facts are allowed on articles. Moreover, if it is criticism that this user is opposed to, he/she should have a look at Manchester_Airport#Drop_off_zones (which was not written by me). You can hide the truth on commercial sites, but you cannot hide it on Wikipedia. Saintfevrier (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dont have a problem with criticism but do have a problem with recentism, this cant be the only issue the airport has had in the last 80 years so it appears to be undue weight. Seem to remember cues at busy times is not that unusual at airports particular at busy school holiday periods. Unless we can present some more balanced content I would say it doesnt need to be included. Bit like "Effect on the area" which ten years later doesnt appear to be that noteworthy and can probably be pruned. Also I wouldnt not use AirHelp as a unbiased source for this sort of thing it is hard to believe it reflects the views of 20 odd million passengers a year. MilborneOne (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MilborneOne Thank you for the constructive comment. However, I disagree: issues are issues, and when they have gained publicity in respected media outlets I do not see the reason why they should not be included. "Recentism" is a part of life: things change. When the issues have been addressed the content can be removed, or updated to reflect the new situation. The mayor himself needed to step in on Manchester Airport's shortcomings. Is this not notable? As for AirHelp, I was surprised at how well-organised their site is; I am also impressed that the Wikipedia article exists in Greek and not in English, that is why I have included it as a "red" internal link (I intend to translate the article at first opportunity). Finally, yes, "effect on the area" may be worth pruning, as "capacity issues" may not reflect the truth in ten years' time. For now it is a major issue. As is the insane cost for drop-off/pick-up areas, which has been included in the article (not by me). And in closing: if we were building an encyclopaedia about 80 years back, we would have been crossed off the map of knowledge by Britannica itself years ago ;-) Saintfevrier (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Former Operators (inc. Thomas Cook)[edit]

I was thinking of adding a former operators section on the page for the big operators like Thomas Cook who flew to over 50 destinations from Manchester - They were part of MAN's redevelopment, and were based there since its formation. Does anyone disagree? (Airline7375 (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Its not something we would normally include, a list of former operators could run into hundreds of airlines at Manchester. MilborneOne (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know, but Thomas Cook and the likes of other airlines like Monarch were huge tour operator airlines based at Manchester - They ran their own handling services, aircraft hangers, and many more at the airport, they impacted MAN and for that reason they should be included. Airline7375 (talk) 15:30, 01 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are Lingus Subsidiaries[edit]

I noticed that Manchester Airport’s Wiki page is the only destination of both Aer Lingus UK and Aer Lingus Regional where it is all combined into just Aer Lingus. On all other airport pages that the subsidiaries fly to, Regional and UK are kept separate. I know consolidating regionals has been a topic of discussion in the past over on WP:AIRPORTS and I know we consolidate airlines like easyjet (we don’t have easyjet UK destinations listed separately, for example). However, considering every other airport that Aer Lingus Regional and Aer Lingus UK fly to have them separate, shouldn’t we just leave it separate for consistency? If we’re going to combine it, then every Wiki page that’s a destination for the subsidiaries should be changed as well to combine it into just one Aer Lingus. --VenFlyer98 (talk) 03:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inaccurate destinations, dates and references[edit]

Hi guys,

There are several inaccuracies on this page. There are a few destinations listed that are no longer operating - for example BA to Billund has been suspended since November with no date of resumption as of yet.

There are several new routes listed with incorrect dates - mainly Ryanair routes. Plus, there are several invalid references - a tweet about BA returning to Gatwick is simply not good enough and references in other languages that don't even mention the route in question are also invalid.

In my attempt to correct these issues though, I've come to notice that my edits have been reversed without any reason at all - despite providing completely accurate information in my edits.

I therefore ask, can we please be better at editing the destination list and only use verified sources - such as Flightradar24 data, Airlineroute, Anna.aero or OAG Schedules.

Furthermore, can we stop reverting edits for no apparent reason? It's just completely pointless and creates a hostile environment of which Wikipedia is not about. This is a community where everyone gets to contribute.

Thank you. Tomkell29 (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10mmsocket I noticed that you have reverted several edits and haven't actually contributed anything to this page. Please read above before removing any future edits. Tomkell29 (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All new routes verified as correct as of 30th December 2021 Tomkell29 (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:British Airtours Flight 28M which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Areas Served[edit]

MAN obviously serves areas outside of Greater Manchester, surely these need mentioning? HiddenHerobrine (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"TRAVELLING TO MANCHESTER AIRPORT" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect TRAVELLING TO MANCHESTER AIRPORT has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 29 § TRAVELLING TO MANCHESTER AIRPORT until a consensus is reached. Loafiewa (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories