I have already explained to you that the flown freight figure does not reflect what is actually going on at the site; I do not understand your fixation with this.
Ozzy Most cargo is not time sensitive and doen`t really care where it flies to, if you go to Heathrow you will see many lorries with cargo
and most of the cargo has come from Amsterdam, Cologne, East Midlands and will not even go airside. and the same for Manchester.
Alright then. I can't help but smile right now. The responses on here panned out exactly as I anticipated.
You see, certain corporate structures become so incestuous and inward-looking over time that they become quite convinced that there is only one 'correct' way to do business.
Their way. Businesses which do things differently are viewed with scorn. Those who question the status quo draw a roll of the eyes and a 'here we go again' response ... someone else who just doesn't understand!
In the case of MAG Cargo's MO, it is as if everybody has had to learn ancient proverbs from 'Chairman Mag's Little Red Book'. Woe betide anybody who challenges the orthodoxy. Even when the truth machine reports
-85.9%. Whilst the competition reports very healthy numbers in precisely the same market segment.
There can only be one possible explanation as to why an objective observer would question the sacred way in which MAG Cargo conducts its business. We're dealing with another idiot who simply doesn't understand how the industry works. Cue really simple "explanations" of the most basic elements of the industry. Because the subject will immediately realise that they're just being dumb and that MAG Cargo's way of doing things is truly beyond reproach. Once we've explained the difference between a truck and a plane, the annoying visitor will go away, chastised with a virtual pat on the head, acknowledging unconditionally that MAG Cargo's policy is the one true way. See the light. And don't dwell on that inconvenient
-85.9%. It is of no concern to the blessed few who "get it".
But there is just one slight problem with that attitude. Well, more than one actually. This particular idiot has been in and around the industry for many years now. He actually does know the difference between a truck and a plane. But ... errr ... NO. He is not prepared to scurry away reassured that MAG Cargo has stumbled across the one true path to business glory. No, that
-85.9% figure, drawn from a booming market sector, rings alarm bells for our observer. Is it even vaguely conceivable that MAG Cargo isn't perfect [GASP!!!]. Is it possible that it might be worth asking: "Is there a better way to approach this business?" MAG apologists say "
Hell NO!!!".
-85.9% says: "Hey! Look at me!!!"
Now here is the problem I have. I don't just look at MAN. I don't just look at MAG airports. I look at lots of airports. In fact, I look at lots of businesses across multiple sectors. I look at performance stats. I look at balance sheets. And I have to tell you that I even know the difference between a truck and a plane. I know what a consolidator does. Without having a condescending "explanation" provided so that I will finally "understand". Truth is, I've been familiar with this business for more years than I care to admit to.
So let me be more specific. I see a figure of -99.3% on the airport passenger stats. And I think: Not great, but wholly in line with the industry norm in this highly-challenging COVID-19 environment. I'm seeing harsh trading conditions, not company-specific underperformance. So I'm not inclined to be critical of this. But then I see that
-85.9% stat for cargo. And that screams 'Red Flag!". Because - in this sector - comparable airports in Manchester's peer group are reporting buoyant numbers. In this circumstance, a good business will ask what it is doing wrong. What measures can be taken to improve. But MAG Cargo's perennial approach appears to be that only they understand the one true path, every other airport is doing it wrong,
-85.9% is fine and dandy. Well, I'm not convinced.
MAG say that they don't want whole-plane freighter ops because they compete with and undermine the economics of scheduled passenger services offering underfloor cargo space. MAG can secure and retain such services because freighters are not competing with them. Here is my response. I am familiar with several airports which are well-diversified across multiple sectors. They accept whole-plane freighters; they accept mixed-use passenger / freight services. And yes, those services do compete for boxes on some level. But so do those boxes which head off on trucks to EMA / STN / DSA / LHR / AMS etc. That competition is there anyway. And what does the evidence tell us? Well, Manchester is losing a swathe of prestigious scheduled passenger services anyway, and its flown cargo throughput is down by a dire
-85.9%. Excluding those freighters didn't save the day for them when it counted. Other airports have lost scheduled passenger services too ... but at least because their business is more diversified they offer more resilience to this economic crisis. And their cargo figures are great. So forgive me for suggesting that it is those airports - not MAG cargo - whose approach to this business is the correct one.
Now, let me run by you afew of the common myths promulgated in association with 'Chairman Mag's Little Red Book'. For brevity, I'll go with bullet-point format.
MYTH: MAN mustn't compete for whole-plane freight business because that would undermine our passenger schedules and we'd end up losing them.
My Response: Both types of service co-exist just fine at comparable airports. They do lose some passenger schedules. But so does MAN. Just the same. So it might be worth ... you know ... competing for the business???? That extra resilience could come in really useful during these tough economic times.
MYTH: There is no point in competing for whole-plane freighter business because MAG gets comparatively little revenue back in return.
My Response: Well, let's see. MAG gets the payment it asks for. If that figure isn't worthwhile, review the charges you levy. Meanwhile, other agencies on the airport campus do make money from flights of this sort. Valuable jobs are created and sustained. Businesses within the 'Northern Powerhouse' catchment are better served. Its a win-win.
MYTH: MAN is better off turning freighters away because they occupy a stand.
My Response: What is an aircraft parking stand for? Of course a freighter occupies a stand for the duration of its turnaround. And so does a passenger airliner. Productive use of assets is a good thing!
MYTH: Freight is not time-sensitive / Cargo doesn't care where it lands / Freight doesn't complain abut its route to destination.
My Response: Inanimate objects rarely complain very loudly. Funny that! But it doesn't mean they wouldn't be better served by an expedited more efficient route to the end user. We can't cite the silence of a box as a measure of satisfaction re its treatment! And actually, shippers do pay a premium for air freight because it generally IS time-sensitive. Otherwise it would go by sea, wouldn't it? Much cheaper. Time IS money.
MYTH: Manchester's freight offer is just fine. Everything gets where it is going just fine. No need to improve the cargo proposition at MAN!
My Response: Well, that wasn't the experience reported by 'The Hut Group', was it? They were so darned frustrated trying to get their goods from the NW to where they needed them in a timely fashion that they concluded forming their own cargo airline was the only workable solution! So that suggests that complacency is not OK and there is room for improvement. BTW, did the usual MAG Cargo suspects try to switch sell THG to "anywhere but here"? I'd love to know!
MYTH: Manchester is cargo-friendly in reality. If you don't accept that you're just another troll slagging off MAG.
My Response: Manchester appears to operate a default business strategy of discouraging flown cargo through MAN whenever a freighter aircraft is involved. Cargo leads are routed through a marketing team whose mission appears to be to switch-sell the business away from MAN come what may. Are they on bonuses for everything they lure away to EMA or STN regardless of what best serves the customer? From time to time, we hear rumours that FedEx - MAN's one based all-freighter operator - is going to up sticks to EMA. Yet they have stayed so far. Do these rumours stem from MAG's efforts to persuade them to move out rather than being something the airline would actually like to do? Or are the rumours just hot air? Afew years back, start-up freight carrier CargoLogicAir put out a
PR piece explaining that they intended to set up a based B747F operation at MAN. I can only imagine the consternation that must have caused in MAG Towers. Fortunately, they popped up at STN afew months later. Phew ... close one!!! DHL announced planned routes from MAN in association with their new warehousing operation at Airport City. Flights appeared - very briefly - on a much smaller scale than anticipated. Then everything decamped to EMA never to be seen again. What angle did MAG Cargo take on this? Were they actively encouraging DHL to stay and develop a successful spoke from MAN to Leipzig? Or might it have been ... nah, your useless freighter is occupying a stand at MAN. It's making the place look untidy. Shift it to EMA!
MYTH: Manchester doesn't have sufficient stands to accommodate freighters.
My Response: Then that is down to exceptionally poor planning. Get it sorted! Though I suspect it won't be very difficult to accommodate freighters for the next few years now!
MYTH: There is no point in MAN pitching for freighter business. Apart from it being useless / waste of space / beneath our dignity, other airports are cheaper and offer a better package.
My Response: In 2008 MAN offered a superb proposition for freighters. If that is no longer so it is because MAG has neglected the sector by design. Other airports may now hold the whip-hand, but that is no excuse to throw in the towel at the starting post. Go out and compete for business again. If the handling arrangements are insufficient, improve them. Adopt a 'can do' mindset - MAN had that many years ago. No, MAN won't win all the contracts. Not by a long shot. Yes, the business has evolved since 2008 (but it is still there). But they will win
some business if they just try. Be proactive! THG Air, CargoLogicAir's original plan, FedEx's stickiness: these developments indicate that there is interest in MAN if it is given half a chance.
So that is my take on this. An
-85.9% drop in a buoyant sector needs to serve as a wake-up call. Complacency is not good enough. Other airports comparable to MAN have proven that whole-plane cargo and mixed-use passenger scheduled services can successfully co-exist. And in this harsh economic climate, the diversity this gives their businesses provides a level of resilience which MAN simply doesn't enjoy. That's not good. A re-examination of the business plan is called for wrt MAN's attitude to cargo. Telling me that I 'don't understand' the basics of this business may make you feel superior. But it doesn't support employment, it doesn't serve NW business to the level it deserves and it betrays the Northern Powerhouse 'levelling-up' agenda. And stupid as I am, I can't help but notice that all these other airports which dismiss the MAG Cargo 'divine path' are doing rather nicely with their cargo business right now.
So someone understands. I wonder who?
NOTE: BTW, You may have spotted that my comments refer to 'MAG Cargo'. I recognise that this is probably not the division's formal title (though it may be?). But it is important to differentiate. My criticism is specific to cargo, because IMO their strategy has been shown up as a complete disaster (sorry, apologists!). It would benefit from a major restructuring led by a consultant drawn from outside 'MAGthink'. My negative comments do not extend across MAG in general, as many departments have been doing an outstanding job and deserve all due accolades for what they have achieved. Cargo is the 'problem child', and my view is that it merits a total rethink. The mistakes have been 'found out'. The truth machine says
-85.9%. Fact, not opinion.