Isn’t that the point of a group approach? You develop synergies which deliver cost savings? If a group gets too monopolistic then the government steps in to manage that situation.
Thankyou for your intelligent engagement in this discussion. Something which can't be said of all participants on this thread!
Yes, MAG would certainly argue that this is the intention behind their strategy. But the question does then arise as to whether monopolistic behaviour in the cargo market has distorted the growth which Manchester Airport specifically could have enjoyed under independent management, focused on the best interests of this airport in particular and the surrounding region served by it. At a time when a -85.9% cargo stat has shown up the fallacy of arguments used to support MAG's preferred strategy at MAN - and which leave the airport in a difficult place with its insufficiently diversified business model - this seems an opportune moment to question whether it is time to rethink and adjust course. Well-run businesses don't plough on in denial when strategic errors have been exposed; they correct past mistakes and look to make new headway in the market where they have stumbled.
the local councils (who are in effect about 50% of the business owners) must be broadly happy with business approach and the returns they see in “normal times” or they wouldn’t continue to back MAG.
Yes, in the good times I suspect they were happy to accept the dividends without delving too deeply into the strategies underlying the performance of the wider business. Indeed, I would suspect that many of our council officers would have little appreciation of the cargo market anyway, nor be aware of how badly MAN has underperformed its peer group in this market post-2008 (or of the reasons behind this). But now employers across the airport campus are making redundancies on a heartbreaking scale - those impacts ripple out through families across the community. So perhaps it is time to enquire whether opportunities to optimise MAN's freight offer to customers would help in contributing to recovery of NW business generally and the airport campus in particular.
I haven’t seen LHR expanding into full freighter beyond the limited quantity they already had.
The freighter market at both LHR and LGW airports is overwhelmingly influenced by the scarcity (and market value) of runway slots at these locations. This is a much lesser consideration at MAN, where the freight industry could more easily avoid peaks in traffic demand for the runways.
it doesn’t necessarily follow that MAN would suddenly launch back into freight just because they didn’t own EMA.
Under present arrangements, MAG can choose to manage distribution of business between MAN and EMA in the interests of avoiding investment at one site or the other. But this arguably monopolistic behaviour distorts the natural market and disadvantages businesses across the regions they serve. Under seperate ownership, this conflict of interest would not apply. How the two sites would fare in a free market environment is a matter for conjecture, but right now it is apparent that MAN's cargo capability has been sadly degraded in the period that MAG has operated both EMA and MAN.
I read recently that 90% of the UK’s population is within 4 hours travel time of EMA which is possibly why many of the logistics providers like it.
EMA offers an attractive business proposition to those in the air cargo trade. DSA too. But so did MAN until its managed decline from 2008 to date. Now they say things like there aren't sufficient parking stands for cargo aircraft ... well there used to be, and it has been a policy decision to run down that capability rather than invest to keep MAN competitive. However, MAN's own geographical location offers advantages to a region densely-packed with businesses which could benefit. This region has a need for whole-plane cargo flights in its own right - just not the capability or the will to accommodate them at airport level. THG's frustration highlights this: they've taken matters into their own hands with the formation of THG Air.
but would you really advocate MAG landing that business at any cost?
At
any cost, of course not. But at reasonable cost, certainly yes. And given the market position of MAN - and its proven past track record in cargo - provision of a couple of cargo stands and associated support equipment does not seem an outrageous proposition.
Pages of ranting about nothing!
MAG has just reported a drop of 85.9% in flown cargo at MAN at a time which sees other airports thriving in this niche. This thread is the home of discussion about Manchester Airport and developments which affect it. Right now, lots of good people face redundancy based on a collapse in business - some unavoidable, some clearly not. Those affected will be interested in optimising MAN's prospects as a magnet for employment going forward.
If you are uninterested in this, remember that nobody forces you to read these exchanges. But that doesn't make the discussion irrelevant. It just means that you would be best served by reading up on subjects which do pique your interest instead.