The obvious question in the freight debate is this: Is Manchester losing freight to airports that are *outside* of the MAG group? If the answer is no - and OzzyOzBorn mentioned at the start of the debate that freight enquiries into Manchester are being redirected to East Midlands - then there really isn't an issue. From a MAG perspective, it doesn't matter if the freight is being flown into East Midlands or Manchester.
You are absolutely right that this argument is at the heart of the matter. MAG (I believe) would argue that they get to keep most of the revenue in-group anyway, so why bust a gut to maximise the potential of Manchester Airport in isolation? Of course, not all flown cargo which would be best served by MAN goes to other MAG airports (see DSA and assorted trucking operations). But the amount which does is sufficient for the narrow interests of MAG accountants to be satisfied. I suspect that this is the rationale which has been used to justify the managed destruction of Manchester Airport's capabilities in the field of whole-plane freight from exemplary in 2008 to almost non-existent now. This, and the discredited argument that competition from freighters would mean long-haul mixed passenger / cargo services not being retained at MAN. The issue of compatible stand availability derives from this: it becomes a classic 'chicken and egg' situation. MAN didn't invest in retaining cargo capability because they didn't want it for internal MAG group reasons; now it is argued that MAN shouldn't compete for freight business because they lack sufficient capability. The one begets the other in a vicious cycle.
But here is the problem. The scenario we describe above could also merit scrutiny as abuse of a monopoly position in the market. By divvying up the spoils in an uncompetitive manner between two airports whose catchments overlap, an operator's pockets may gain more coin, but the wider interests of the regions they are entrusted to serve is betrayed in the process. Is it perhaps appropriate to examine whether MAN and EMA in particular should actually be operated under the same ownership at all? Would the interests of both regions not be better served if these airports operated in open competition with each other in a free market?
We sometimes encounter a situation where the narrow interests of a business owner and the region it serves are not in alignment. This has happened more than once with regard to Manchester Airport. The decision not to expand T3 to facilitate Ryanair growth (that feels so long ago in this C-19 economy!) was a case in point. The ROI was insufficient to interest MAG's accountants, though the NW region would have benefitted from expansion to a far greater extent than MAG itself. There was arguably a case for state aid to bridge that gap, but that is another discussion, and post C-19 this debate is moot for the foreseeable future.
Returning to cargo specifically, the debate boils down to this. Manchester Airports Group can (if it so chooses) save money by distorting the market, directing cargo business to site(s) which suit them. But if they elect to do this, they disregard the best interests of the region served by Manchester Airport. Their service to business in the NW is sub-optimal, falling well short of the level the region should aspire to. Employment opportunities are not optimised which negatively impacts the wider community - maybe not specifically wrt MAG's own payroll, but certainly impacting that of other agencies working across the airport campus and beyond. The Northern Powerhouse initiative is undermined by Manchester Airport's lack of commitment to the project in practical terms.
So perhaps those with a stake in this debate divide into two distinct categories: those who believe that a marginal improvement to MAG's P&L account at group level justifies subverting the immediate interests of Manchester Airport and the region it serves, and those who believe that the potential of Manchester Airport should be optimised across diverse sectors (including cargo) to best serve the NW public, business, and partners across the Northern Powerhouse initiative.
Before the PPE blip (and lets all hope it is a blip), wasn't the dedicated freighter business in decline?
Yes, the market is smaller than it once was. But it hasn't gone away. That the market has declined from its peak is no reason not to compete for the business which remains. It is still a big market. Also, if we were to argue that it is not worth pursuing opportunities to optimise market share in a declining market, then logically we should accept that MAN should stop competing for new passenger services now. :-)
My understanding is that demand has grown, but the main driver for increased freight demand is the loss of passenger freight capacity, which will be temporary, to some degree. The loss of passenger cargo capacity is why MANs cargo figures have declined so dramatically, so quickly, rather than a foreseeable issue with the business model.
I think we can all agree that MAN's cargo throughput will recover from this recent low as scheduled passenger services with underfloor cargo capacity are restored. But that recovery will be to a level short of the already sub-optimal throughput which MAG was content to accept pre COVID-19: the freight-share left behind when all the whole-plane cargo potential has been removed from the equation. This crisis has exposed the reality that those airports which operated a diverse model across a range of business opportunities are in a far more resilient position now. The agencies working across their campuses will not be obliged to make such deep employment cuts as at those airports which have placed all their eggs in the passenger services basket.
One for Ozzy a China Eastern B777 is on it`s way with CARGO
Bring it on. More like this please. Though I hope that the need for this particular type of cargo will quickly reduce for non-aviation reasons!
EDIT: I've just been advised by an impeccable source that today's B77W flight from China is a passenger service, not a freight charter.