Talk:Birmingham Airport

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Birmingham Airport article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Aviation: Airports

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the airport project.

England High‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

West Midlands Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject West Midlands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of West Midlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.West MidlandsWikipedia:WikiProject West MidlandsTemplate:WikiProject West MidlandsWest Midlands articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Birmingham Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Birmingham, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Birmingham on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BirminghamWikipedia:WikiProject BirminghamTemplate:WikiProject BirminghamBirmingham articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

List of airlines?

How about a list of airlines to this airport???

Antonio Look at me I can fly! Martin

Apperently it's been added but I'm missing British Airways in the list, or do they not fly to BHX anymore?^^ 86.20.165.245 13:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The division of British Airways, BA Connect, which operated from Birmingham, was bought out by Flybe and as such BA no longer fly out of Birmingham. Aircraft in their colours are still operating from BHX, but these are either as part of the Flybe franchaise or for maintenance (again by Flybe). Reevery 14:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Why "Birmingham International Airport (England)", not Birmingham International Airport (UK) especailly when one looks at the list of pages which link here .... ????

Images.

We need images of the airport terminals not just the little tram service and logo. A satellite photo would be helpful to show the size of the airport. - Erebus555 12:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"New routes" sub-section

I have removed the "New routes" sub-section within the "Airlines and destinations" section of the article. This sub-section is simply unnecessary repetition of new routes from the airport already included directly above (and correctly presented in accordance with WikiProject Airports guidelines). It complicates this section of the article by requiring those who update the "Airlines and destinations" section when a new route is announced to also update a second, identical section which in turn provides readers of the article with no new information and only serves to unnecessarily lengthen the article as a whole. Please post your views here so we can try to come to a consensus before simply adding this section again. SempreVolando (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We dont really need new routes duplicated. This is an encyclopedia not a travel guide and the information in the Airlines and destinations bit is all that is needed. MilborneOne (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Airlines at Birmingham International

British Airways are the main airline at Terminal 2. Ryan flies from terminal 1 and not 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.75 (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not include shop / restaurant names

Please note that Wikipedia is not a travel guide and as such individual resturants, shops, etc... within an airport (e.g. Austin Reed, Julian Graves, Yates's Wine Bar, etc...) have no encyclopedic notability. I have therefore removed these in favour of a broader generic statement of available facilities in the terminal in line with this policy. SempreVolando (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the section it appears to be a piece of advertising slipped into the history section, it is not relevant to the history, the provision of retail facilities at an airport is not notable or unusual. It is not a travel guide and lots of other WP:NOTs. MilborneOne (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article was moved

An IP user has recently moved the contents of Birmingham International Airport (United Kingdom) to Birmingham International Airport, it appears that this was done without discussion. It was also moved with a copy and paste move which is not allowed in wikipedia as it destroys the article history. I have asked the IP user to discuss the move, which if agreed should be done in the correct manner. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bmibaby

Bmibaby's website continues to sell tickets from Birmingham to Krakow, Milan-Bergamo and Warsaw. If you believe these routes should not be shown, please discuss this rather than just deleting the information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmbma (talk • contribs) 16:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryanair to Fuertevenutra

Ryanair continue to sell tickets to Fuerteventura on their website for at least the duration of December. Please do not delete this destination without discussing or providing a source —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmbma (talk • contribs) 19:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC) See www.ryanair.com and try booking a ticket from Birmingham to Fuerteventura for details... or see http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/news.php?yr=08&month=dec&story=rte-en-101208 Pmbma (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Pmbma[reply]

Ryanair to Cuneo and Grenoble

Flights do not begin until 20 December. Please do not delete the [begins 20 December] tag until 20 December Pmbma (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Pmbma[reply]

Incidents

In the incidents section, could the very first incident possibly refer to the airport in Birmingham, Alabama in the USA? Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport I'm not definite but it seems possible considering the source and destination of the flight. Bonzostar (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this incident did happen at here as i remember it very well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.42.248 (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The accident was definately at the UK airport. That is why the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch investigated and reported on it. Mjroots (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryanair seasonal routes

I have re-instated seasonal tags on the following Ryanair routes, because they are demonstratably and verifiably seasonal from the Ryanair Timetable:

Bratislava (summer seasonal, re-starts 31/03/09)
Marseille (summer seasonal, re-starts 29/03/09)
Olbia (summer seasonal, re-starts 30/03/09)
Poitiers (summer seasonal, re-starts 31/03/09)
Trapani (summer seasonal, re-starts 29/03/09)
Trieste (summer seasonal, re-starts 29/03/09)

The Ryanair Route Map does not concur, and clearly uses a different definition of seasonal than Wikipedia, which states at WP:AIRPORTS that the term should be applied to flights that do not operate year round. These flights clearly and verifiably do not operate year round and therefore the seasonal tag is appropriate and has been re-added.

Please do not remove the seasonal tags without discussing here first. Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Ryanair's timetable only goes so far into the future therefore they are not seasonal, I also note from youre edits you have stated the same about easyjet, only Grenoble for Easyjet is seasonal, Geneva is all year round. Therefore I have reverted your edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnalord (talk • contribs) 10:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad someone else see's what I am saying here, btw I will add the seasonal tag for easyjet on there, your forgot to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.37.220.150 (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your responses. The issue I was highlighting was not that the Ryanair routes appear to end (as a result of the timetable not being released so far into the future) but that these routes are not currently operating (i.e. between now and the end of March these flights don't operate). This surely makes the routes seasonal? Marseille and Trapani for example have not operated at BHX since October last year, they are re-starting for the summer but cannot be described as "year-round" routes. If the subsequent timetables released by Ryanair suggest year-round operation then the seasonal tag can then be removed, but as it stands these routes do not operate in the winter.

As far as easyJet is concerned their timetable suggests that BHX-GVA operates only until 19 April 2009, indeed no flights can be booked beyond that date, so this is presumably a seasonal route as well? It did operate last summer but seems to be winter only this year. Let me know if I am missing something obvious here! Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would advise you check the destination map on ryanair.com, all routes in grey state they are "all year round". As for Easyjet yes your are right you can only book til the date you say, however that is because the tourist season changes there to summer, you can still and will be able to book after that date, Grenolbe you can't though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnalord (talk • contribs) 11:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes I have seen the Ryanair Route Map, as stated in my first post above it does not seem to use the same definition of seasonal as Wikipedia does. It has been an issue on other airport articles as it lists hardly any summer-only routes as seasonal, preferring to suggest they are year-round! Clearly the routes listed above are not as they do not operate during the winter months; this is the issue and it is what makes them seasonal (not the end date due to timetable cutoff). For easyJet I still don't understand - if they intend to operate the route beyond 19th April why does their timetable state that for BHX-GVA during the summer the route operates only until 19th April, and why are they not selling tickets for the route during the summer (like they are from East Midlands, for example). The route end date concurs with the Birmingham Airport Timetable which also shows the route ending on 19/4, but shows other routes continuing into the summer. Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone willing to re write/update?

I've just had read through and some of the info is out of date, but is corrected in subsequent paragraphs.

ie. "when the 2nd runway is built", followed by "2nd runway will not be built". And "a new international pier will be built" followed by "a new international pier has been completed". Can the old stuff be written out to take into consideration building completion and up to date planning decisions? _Will^Dow (Talk) 14:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the UAE lounge is now open [1]

Also, there are some points in the History section which perhaps don't belong in either "history" or "future". Thinking something like "present" be added? The fact that the airport is in Solihull and BCC isnt responsible for planning permission, for example, is something that could be moved from history. _Will^Dow (Talk) 11:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have a play around with the article throughout the course of the day to try and make it more coherent. At the moment its a bit all over the place. Bear with me through the day by not reverting. I'm going to try and use the Heathrow format to improve the article. Any probs about it, please post here rather than revert straight away... Thanks, _Will^Dow (Talk) 09:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might add "Access" with public transport, and car etc etc like on other airport pages later when i get a chance _Will^Dow (Talk) 11:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Security

If a breach of security isn't classed as an "incident", then does anyone have any objections to a new section being created to cover this? Something along the lines of Security breach or 2007 Security Lapse etc. The "incident" is already covered briefly in the history section, but for something which was so serious, perhaps expansion in a new section is warranted...?

Heathrow has "Accidents and Incidents" as a heading, then "Terrorism and security incidents" as a sub heading. _Will^Dow (Talk) 16:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All BHX sources are dead

BHX has a new official website, and it appears now that all the current sources linking to the old www.bhx.co.uk website are now deadlinks. I'm trying to go through one by one to repair these. Any help would be appreciated. New site is here _Will^Dow (Talk) 15:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done _Will^Dow (Talk) 15:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Runway Extension plans scaled down

Plans have now been scaled back to halve costs. Runway will be shorter and A45 will not tunnel underneath the runway. If anyone has the time, can they update the article? [2] _Will^Dow (Talk) 08:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move (October 2010)

I propose this is moved back to Birmingham International Airport. The page only redirects to this one. Birmingham in England gets priority over the smaller city in Alabama when it comes to naming pages and the other airport doesn't include the word 'international' in its name. Mtaylor848 (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (October 2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus. I really hate to do that, but a move to simply Birmingham Airport needs a full discussion especially since the other airport that has the same common name has more aircraft activity. That would mean that the discussion would need to establish primary use. So I see this being being moved to Birmingham Airport, West Midlands, Birmingham Airport, England or Birmingham Airport if it can be determined that it is the primary use. I'll leave it to the participants to decide which direction to go and make the updated nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham International Airport, West Midlands → Birmingham International Airport — See talk page entry above. New name redirects to old name. The West Midlands tag is superflous and the other Birmingham Airport doesn't actually have any scheduled international flights making the 'international' tag a little untruthful. The fact the new name redirects here shows that this airport has been given priority in naming.

Mtaylor848 (talk) 10:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that's not true, Birmingham International Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) shows that this was a disambiguation page since 2003, until August this year. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 11:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – That's not strictly true either; the history of "Birmingham International Airport" shows that from creation on 18 June 2003 to 7 August 2003 the article was about the British airport with a note at the end mentioning the Alabama airport. It became a dab page when an AnonIP created an article about the Alabama airport, edited the older article and copied and pasted a new article. Green Giant (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural oppose you'll lose the edit history for this page, since there's been several cut and paste moves performed that need fixing. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 11:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support (assuming the cut-and-paste history can be fixed up). While I reject the argument about the number of international flights out of BHM (because "International" is part of a proper noun, not descriptive), this is a case where a) we have two uses for the proposed title and b) one of those uses would not be at the base name even if it was the primary topic. In such cases, it's perfectly reasonable to have one article at its natural name (Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport) and the other at the base name (Birmingham International Airport), with appropriate hatnotes to get readers to the correct article. Powers ^T 12:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support what LtPowers says above. Green Giant (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support clearly the prime topic, I don't think many people would have heard of the other one Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 17:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Whether or not people have heard of it, or if we find it untruthful is immaterial. If that's the name the authorities in Alabama gave it, then that's the title the airport should follow. As it stands, the British one is officially called Birmingham Airport and the American one Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport. In any event, the British airport does not have the word "international in its name, does it? jasepl (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, shouldn't it be "Birmingham Airport" and not "Birmingham International Airport"? I'd support a move to Birmingham Airport, with a {{dablink}} at the top for the one in Alabama. Mlm42 (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as Mlm42 support move to Birmingham Airport (which from the website appears to be the current name), Birmingham Airport already redirects to here. MilborneOne (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: There are two Birminghams with an airport and it is better that the name makes it clear which airport it is. Snowman (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, there's no shortage of cities called Birmingham, and yet the article with that title is the one in England. Mlm42 (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that airports are more likely to be confused than big cities. Snowman (talk) 12:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to Birmingham Airport (the "International" seems already to have been dropped sometime during the discussion). It's the primary topic (particularly as there is only one competing topic, and that has a different name anyway), so doesn't need disambiguation. (Or if it is decided that it is not the primary topic, then it should be disambiguated using the easily understood "England", not the confusing "West Midlands", which implies - if anything - that Birmingham has other airports which are outside West Midlands county.)--Kotniski (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (December 2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. While it is clear that there is little satisfaction with the current title, the poll shows that the community is still divided on whether or not the English airport should be at the "Birmingham Airport" location; the secondary proposal to move it to Birmingham Airport, England was only very lightly discussed. Because there seems to have been some support for this and because of unhappiness with the current name, I have moved the article to this location. If there is no opposition to this within a week then the location Birmingham Airport, England can be regarded as the article's new home; but if there is opposition within a week then I will move it back and the proposer will need to open a new more specific RM. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham Airport, West Midlands → Birmingham Airport — Or to Birmingham Airport, England. See discussion above, which was IMO unnecessarily closed when consensus was plainly developing for Birmingham Airport. This seems to have been unquestioned as the primary topic for that phrase for a long time, it handles many more passengers than the other Birmingham airport and serves a larger and better-known Birmingham, and is known by that name while the other airport is named differently. There seems to me no doubt that this continues to be the primary topic (and nothing to be gained by creating a dab page for just two entries), and therefore should carry just that as its title; but if for some reason it is found not to be, then please change the disambiguator to England (which everyone understands) rather than the confusingly overprecise West Midlands.Kotniski (talk) 08:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to Birmingham Airport (both the common and official name) does not require in my opinion a disambiguator at the end as Birmingham Airport redirects here without a problem. MilborneOne (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, under the same reasoning as under the previous proposal. Powers ^T 13:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alot more people have heared of the UK airport than the other one. Looking here proves that. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 20:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Crouch, Swale: As you've been repeatedly told, you can't use Google UK search results as a worldwide metric. Those search results are specific to the United Kingdom; are you honestly surprised than an airport in Alabama doesn't figure prominently there? Powers ^T 22:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, but Crouch has a point. Compare Google searches "Birmingham Airport" Alabama and "Birmingham Airport" England, and England clearly wins. Mlm42 (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - A point made through faulty logic is no point at all. Powers ^T 13:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - From WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, adding '&pws=0' to the end of a Google search string removes various biases, including geographical. See here. GyroMagician (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move to Birmingham Airport; there are two Birminghams with an airport and it is better that the name makes it clear which airport it is. Neutral on whether the disambiguator should be "England" or "West Midlands", but note that "West Midlands" is the disambiguator for Category:Birmingham, West Midlands and its subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support a move to Birmingham Airport, England, ~~but Oppose move to Birmingham Airport~~. The one in england seems to be called "Birmingham Airport" most often, but the one in Alabama seems to often be called "Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport", as well as a few variations, including "Birmingham Airport" sometimes. Wikipedia traffic statistics appear to indicate the England airport gets only about 30-50% more hits than the Alabama one, and this may be partially due to the fact Birmingham Airport redirects to the England one. For this reason, I think Birmingham Airport should be a disambiguation page. But "England" is better than "West Midlands", because there's only one Birmingham in England, and not everyone knows the West Midlands are in England! Mlm42 (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:TWODABS there's no point in having a disambiguation page if there are only two possible targets -- especially so if the title is the actual name of one and only one of them. Powers ^T 02:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not the way I interpreted the guideline; if there is no "primary topic" then there should be a disambiguation page, even if there's only two choices. The question is really whether or not a primary topic exists for the search term "Birmingham Airport"; and on closer inspection, for example by comparing Google searches "Birmingham Airport" Alabama, and "Birmingham Airport" England, the latter has about 10 times as many hits. This, and similar Google searches have convinced me actually the airport in England is the primary topic for "Birmingham Airport". So I Support a move to Birmingham Airport. Mlm42 (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is someone going to fix the cut and paste moves discussed in the previous requested moves section? 65.93.12.43 (talk) 04:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article for the only other contender for the name is at Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport, and there seems no reason to move it, so there's no reason to disambiguate this one. Andrewa (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport only gained the "Shuttleworth" tag two years ago; its IATA and FAA codes are still "BHM", and common usage still seems to be "Birmingham": for example, try the booking form at http://www.aa.com (or http://www.americanairlines.co.uk), where you'll find that the two Birmingham are listed as "Birmingham, AL" and "Birmingham International, United Kingdom". Given that usage by the airlines, it's perfectly reasonable for someone looking for the Alabama airport to look for "Birmingham airport", just as the same is reasonable for the one in England. That's ambiguity, and that's why we disambiguate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those are fair points, but similarly it's perfectly reasonable for someone who's looking for Birmingham, Alabama to search for Birmingham; and they'd be politely pointed in the right direction by a {{dablink}} at the top of the page. So even taking into consideration those points, I still think that the one in England qualifies as the "primary topic" for the term "Birmingham airport". Mlm42 (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not exactly a good point to use, since Birmingham's usage has been discussed on several talk pages and project pages as to why the UK city is sitting at the primary position, essentially breaking down into a US vs UK debate... 65.94.44.124 (talk) 05:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think that this article should be moved to 'Birmingham Airport'. It's clearly the name favoured by the airport's administrators and the name used on its website almost exclusively. George Richard Leeming (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: two large airports with names than can be confused. I think that the previous name suggestion which failed should be taken into consideration, because it was so recent. ~~Name change to "Birmingham Airport, England" would be ok.~~ Snowman (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Given the passenger volume and the precedent of "Birmingham" on Wikipedia referring to the British city rather than the Alabama city, its understandable and reasonable that "Birmingham Airport" be redirected to "Birmingham Airport, West Midlands" or "Birmingham Airport, England". However, BHM does have more aircraft operations than BHX's, and is the default "Birmingham Airport" for a nontrivial portion of Wikipedia readers. Accordingly, the page titles should remain distinctive to avoid reader confusion. MikeTheActuary (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear, I suppose people who are opposing the move to "Birmingham Airport" are also in favour of Birmingham Airport becoming a disambiguation page with two items. Mlm42 (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - While I wouldn't object to a disambiguation page, I think the current redirection is reasonable. I'm expressing a preference to maintain the status quo. MikeTheActuary (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure I understand.. you want Birmingham Airport to redirect to this page, but you are against moving this page to Birmingham Airport? Isn't that unnecessary WP:PRECISION? Mlm42 (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - There may be a typo or mistake with file names in that comment, but it seems clear that he thinks that the airport file names should be distinctive. I read the comment as meaning that this file should be "Birmingham Airport, West Midlands" or "Birmingham Airport, England" retaining the place after the airport name to make it distinctive. Snowman (talk) 10:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Precisely. MikeTheActuary (talk) 11:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I understand that. My point is that it seems odd to have all this discussion, decide the title of the article should be disambiguated, and then not make Birmingham Airport a disambiguation page.. ? Mlm42 (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I thought disambiguation pages with only two entries were contrary to WP:TWODABS.
        What I'm suggesting (and what seems to be the status quo) is an arrangement roughly analogous to "Martin Luther King": There are three notable people with the name "Martin Luther King", and therefore each requires additional clarification in the article titles for clarity. However, most average readers searching for "Martin Luther King" are searching for one individual in particular. Therefore Martin Luther King redirects to Martin Luther King Jr. which in turn has a hatnote to Martin Luther King (disambiguation) -- an arrangement that seems rather sensible to me.
        However, since there are only two "Birmingham Airports", the disambiguation page is unnecessary. Thus, I support a Birmingham Airport redirect to Birmingham Airport, West Midlands (or "Birmingham Airport, England"), where a hatnote for Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport can be found.
        This, conveniently, is the current configuration (except for the possible rename to "Birmingham Airport, England"). MikeTheActuary (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I see; thanks for the explanation. If I understand correctly, you believe that the airport in England is the "primary topic" for the term "Birmingham Airport". Mlm42 (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        No. :) Personally, I believe that the city in Alabama is significant enough that the English city (and its airport) shouldn't have claim to primacy....but I concede that my view is outside the apparent consensus. Therefore I am simply opposed to the title of the BHX page being "Birmingham Airport" without additional clarification for the reasons previously given. The status quo of (redirect / hatnotes / no disambiguation) seems the most logical balance among Wiki-standards, the handling of the city pages, and the need for clarity in regards to two significant airports with similar names. MikeTheActuary (talk) 10:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh... that stance appears contrary to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (as well as WP:TWODABS). Hence my confusion. Mlm42 (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No primary topic as both are larger cities. So Birmingham Airport should be a disambiguation page. Royal broil 12:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move. Birmingham Airport should either by a disambiguation page for the two airports or a redirect to Birmingham International Airport, where a current disambiguation page exists. --auburnpilot talk 23:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor note this airport is not actually called Birmingham International Airport so a redirect would not be correct. This one should be at Birmingham Airport the American one at Birmingham International Airport and a link to the other at the top of each of the pages. MilborneOne (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think a case can be made that the English airport is the clear primary topic. If that is the case, disambiguation is required. The naming convention for England is that we disambiguate by Placename, Ceremonial county, not by Placename, Country. The title should therefore remain at Birmingham Airport, West Midlands. Skinsmoke (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a naming convention for airports? Anyway, if it's what you say it is, what would be the rationale? Do we have significant numbers of airport names (or any at all) which are ambiguous within England? --Kotniski (talk) 07:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No other airports in England have a disambiguator - Only a draft project document but Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Naming (Airports) has:

Consider the wikipedia naming conventions including Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). In general these guidelines encourage using the word airport in the article name.
Try to avoid long and unwieldy names like Dakar-Yoff-Léopold Sédar Senghor International Airport, this statement does not preclude the use of such names.
Try to use a name that is sourced from a government agency, or the airport operator. If you have multiple choices, use the name that is most commonly used and is precise so that a dab is not needed.

MilborneOne (talk) 12:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right, given that we don't seem to have consensus to drop the disambiguator, are there any further arguments against using ", England" rather than ", West Midlands"?--Kotniski (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and presumably if we're not going to move this one, then Birmingham Airport should no longer redirect here, but should be a two-line dab page, right? (In fact the same dab page as is now at Birmingham International Airport - should the dab page in fact be at the simpler title Birmingham Airport, with "Birmingham International Airport" a redirect from there?) --Kotniski (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When there are only two alternatives, headers can redirect. Snowman (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally speaking, I do not see any consensus, and I think that it is about time this discussion was summarized and closed preferably by an neutral person. Snowman (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The unqualified name already redirects to this article. There is already an implicit consensus that this is the primary topic. There is no need to be overly precise. --Polaron | Talk 18:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support primary topic, DAB should not be used for 2 items Widefox (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose This is not clearly the primary topic, i.e. primary Birmingham airport. Keep as is or use "Birmingham Airport, England", "Birmingham Airport, UK", or something along those lines. It is not that big of a deal though with the For note at the top pointing to Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport and a For note in the Birmingham-Shuttlesworth article pointing here. -fnlayson (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The official name for your airport is Birmingham Airport and the official name of our airport is Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport. There is no conflict. Disambiguation tags at the top of each article is sufficient. -Ttownfeen (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the official name is now Birmingham International Airport but the point remains. I'd also point out the BHX outnumbers BHM in commercial enplanements by about 9:1. So, BHX is arguably the bigger airport by far. -Ttownfeen (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you were correct the first time - it is Birmingham Airport (previously Birmingham International Airport and previous to that Birmingham Airport). I corrected the article, and will highlight this below. Widefox (talk) 11:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport is a long name, so I would guess that it is known as Birmingham Airport for short. Snowman (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, the convention of airports having International or Regional or whatever in their names is so ingrained I'm pretty sure the layman Wikipedian searching for information for the airport in Alabama would search for "Birmingham International Airport" before "Birmingham Airport." -Ttownfeen (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name

Is Birmingham Airport and has been since November 2010. Just to clarify - previous to that it was Birmingham International Airport and previous to that Birmingham Airport). I changed the article with ref. There are 3rd party refs if anyone wants to use one. Widefox (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info for "Accidents and incidents" section

I believe there was a small collision where an air side service vehicle collided with a parked PIA (Pakistan International Airlines)Boeing 777 registered: AP-BGL

Should this incident be included with the "Accidents and incidents"? or should it be placed elsewhere (if at all)?

Brief info on the incident: http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/forums/interesting-pics-of-the-damage-done-to-pia-b777-15234.aspx

The following link was obtained from the page noted above, and shows the actual damage. http://www.historyofpia.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11917 Ben.710 (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not particularly notable so should not be added to the article, a fairly common occurence at airports. MilborneOne (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing that one up Ben.710 (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

airblue ???

On this article it said that airblue stopped it routes on 2 December 2013, yet after looking on the airlines website and looked at the flight schedules it still say that it fly's to BHX as far as 12 January 2014. I have found no information that airblue has stopped the route?? I think the airblue routes should stay on the article until it can be conformed that the airline has stopped flying to BHX. Here is the flight schedules ---> [3], 12:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.69.7.104 (talk)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.airport-technology.com/projects/birminghamint/
Triggered by \bairport-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 13:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why new International routes removed from page??

Both Biman Bangladesh Airlines and China Southern Airlines plan to operate at Birmingham Airport in summer of 2014, which was confirmed on BHX website with other news and airline websites. The routes was then removed for known reason. Can some tell me why this is so and if it was and accident to be replied onto the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.145.27 (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryanair Birmingham-Bratislava

Ryanair offers flights to Bratislava 4-5 years already, but Bratislava isnt on the Ryanairs destination list anymore - this route wasnt werent cancelled and its not going to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.69.6 (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References in 'Runway Extension'

What has happened to all the references in this section? Could everyone please try to track who made that change. Flyer500 (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have now fixed these references, but sections '2010-present' and 'runway extension' are quite messy Flyer500 (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup of Passenger Destinations

I use this airport often, as it's convenient for me and I travel a lot. I have noticed there is a lot of information out of date. The Birmingham Airport official website is quite comprehensive with information about passenger destinations: http://www.want2gothere.com/bhx/destinations/

I am planning to go through that website and updating this article accordingly, to update the small number of outdated pieces of information. Brumalicious (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just note that this is not a travel guide so doesnt really need to be upto date, it just needs to be reliably referenced and dated. Also note that www.want2gothere.com is not an official website just a travel company. MilborneOne (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, of course, this isn't wikitravel/wikivoyage. However, www.want2gothere.com is almost certainly the right place to find the correct information, as the Birmingham Airport official website links directly to it. Brumalicious (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seasonal flights

Seasonal flights by the current project consensus are those which do not operate every calendar month of the year. For Jet2 Krakow and Prague flights these do operate in each calendar month of the year, and are therefore regarded year-round for wikipedia. SempreVolando (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This idea of flights "operating every month" in order to be year round is a very loosely termed one. These Jet2 flights only have one flight in January (not notable by any means when usual schedule is 3x weekly) so January can hardly be counted. Flights then don't resume until OVER 5 weeks later half way through February. These flights are seasonal - 5 weeks is a considerable period of time and saying these flights are year round due to 1 flight in January is absolute madness!! Fair enough if the break was only 2 or 3 weeks long but this is over 5 weeks spanning 2 different months with only 1 flight in January. Using this method: a flight with a break of 4 weeks (month of Jan roughly) would be considered seasonal yet these Jet2 routes are said to be year round with over 5 weeks break! No! There needs to be a bit of leeway and common sense applied here. Futurepilot1999 (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is very loosely termed I agree, as you can see from my own contributions at WT:AIRPORTS I believe a better a stricter definition is needed and should be complied with. Your opinion is no more or less valid than anyone else's in this regard, however currently the project consensus is for services not operating in every calendar month of the year to be deemed seasonal. That does not apply to these flights and you should respect the consensus of other editors in this regard until a new and more formal wording at WP:AIRPORTS applies, via consensus (and please do contribute - there is already a discussion underway!). Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin but this debate and the consequent edits seems a little unproductive. Could I suggest leaving this to a wiki-admin who you can hopefully both accept as being neutral in the whole matter ? Pmbma (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring[reply]

I agree with the above. An unbiased, neutral admin needs to take in to account what we have both said above (irrespective of the idiotic guidelines) to ensure the best decision is made. Futurepilot1999 (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed back-and-forth edits are not productive, and indeed I instigated admin attention at the same time as you (some overlap led to duplication in this respect). Will accept what an admin determines, in due course. SempreVolando (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. users may consider guidelines 'idiotic', but there is a clear opportunity to change them. See my note above "and please do contribute - there is already a discussion underway!". As you will see my opinion is not the status quo. Let's make it better, and clearer, for everyone. Whichever guideline ends up in place, yours, mine or something totally different! Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to direct me to this "policy" you talk of? As far as I can see this "policy" is merely some opinions on the talk page and not anything written in stone. Futurepilot1999 (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use the word "policy"? Why did you quote that word? The very fact that it is not "policy" (now you've got me quoting!), is the very basis of the discussion. The established consensus among most editors over many years (not just the recent discussion) has been the definition I quoted. I actually don't even agree with it (as seen if you read my examples on the discussion thread linked above). However for now my opinion doesn't matter - until a formal guideline is changed, established consensus is the best thing we have and so we should stick with that, while putting forward the argument for what we think should actually apply. Agreed? SempreVolando (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Birmingham Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Altitude

At a point 6 nm from the runway the aircraft had descended to an altitude of 660 ft, which was 164 ft above ground level.

What does this mean? Valetude (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BH Air

I have removed BH Air from the listning of destinations as I have been unable to find any evidence that they are still flying to Birmingham, or have any plans to do so. Their website doesn't seem to sell tickets (!) but it doesn't really reference Birmingham anywhere, and nor do tickets see to be available for sale anywhere else. I may be wrong, and with some evidence of a resumption date am more than happy for them to be listed again. Mordac (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]