Lots of great comments here. Thanks to those who have shared their thoughts on the topic.
It seems to me that the different viewpoints expressed concerning MAN's best course for the future boil down to differences of philosophy at a fundamental level. Consider the two following statements. Which one would you most closely identify with?
Option One: Manchester Airport is an infrastructure asset whose primary role is to maximise profits accruing to its parent holding company, MAG, and thereby to its shareholders. If the pursuit of this goal means not serving the surrounding region to its fullest potential then so be it. The airport should select its business partners based solely upon the forecast return to bottom line earnings. Group interests take absolute precedence over those of the region served, so selected business opportunities will be switch-sold to other group airports if it benefits MAG corporate profitability. Profits accruing to MAG are absolutely paramount, so there is seen to be no moral obligation to attract and retain skilled jobs via other stakeholders on the campus (eg. aircraft painters, aircraft engineering providers) unless directly swelling MAG profits. Wider social responsibilities are entirely secondary to MAG's financial best interests.
Option Two: Manchester Airport is an infrastructure asset whose primary role is to serve as the preferred link to the rest of the world for businesses and people within its catchment area. The airport's role includes acting as a conduit for attracting overseas visitors and investment to the region, optimising the boost to the regional economy brought by incoming executives and tourists. It should endeavour to deliver an attractive ROI for its shareholders, but within the remit of optimising the facility's contribution to serving the best interests of the regional economy and the Northern Powerhouse Initiative. Positive engagement with all sectors of the market to this end should be the prime objective. No company motivated to work with MAN for the betterment of the region should be dismissed based purely on corporate expediency. Employment opportunities for the area should be optimised, both directly on campus and in the surrounding communities beyond. MAN should strive to be the best it can be in all sectors on behalf of the region it serves.
I fear that there is little chance of reconciling the opinions of those who think in terms of option one with those who identify with option two and vice-versa.
It will come as no surprise that I identify with option two myself. But I have felt for some time that MAG puts its own interests first in many instances with little consideration for the lost opportunity this represents to the region served. Perhaps more could have been done to retain Air Livery on campus? How much urgency has there been to encourage interest expressed by Dublin Aerospace for a maintenance operation which would deliver highly-skilled jobs to the airport? Is there enthusiasm towards working closely with THG to establish a cargo airline at MAN? Why are pure freighter leads routinely switch-sold away? Why has there been an unconcerned shrug when additional based RYR / EZY aircraft were turned away when there was ample opportunity to manage space in readiness for them ahead of time? Many more good decisions have been made than disappointing ones - let me be clear about that. But I aspire to see the pursuit of excellence in all areas of the business and there appears to be a way to go on that. I hope that the mood in MAG Towers is finally shifting towards embracing all new business opportunities as we emerge into the post-covid economy.
Other points arising:
just cautioning against the pursuit of target volumes achieved by pricing and deals which lead to multiple carriers serving similar destinations at low yields.
There is an implicit assumption here that there will continue to be a range of potential airline partners to choose from representing a cross-section of different business models. But the field has been narrowing for some years now and covid is expediting that process. Airlines generally - not just the established no-frills names - are demanding very attractive terms from their airport partners across the board. It really is incumbent upon airport operators to optimise income from ancillary revenue streams, and MAN's pre-covid profit levels (amongst others) show that healthy returns can be made by working with carriers from across the spectrum. Including the rapidly-expanding proportion of the market represented by the LCC's. MAN does not have the luxury of being too choosy about new business. When we're thinking of potential additional based aircraft, the competing offers come from MAD, CDG, BER, MXP, GVA, PMI and many more ... not just the neighbours down the road. It is important for the UK economy as well as the region that MAN should compete with intent to maximise its share of the business on offer.
Travelling back and forth frequently to holiday homes in the Med will not achieve that and I believe it will become increasingly taxed and seen as socially irresponsible.
The whole environmental debate is another contentious can of worms which could fill pages on here. But it's been discussed in depth before, so I'll keep it brief here. I personally don't agree with stigmatising customers travelling by air for leisure. As previously mentioned, they tend to fly on larger aircraft with very high L/F's which is actually a good thing from an environmental perspective. And they are taxed: APD was introduced as a 'green' initiative because fuel could not be taxed directly (and that is a rip-off). But the industry is working towards 'green' propulsion solutions, and MAN has shown support for that very recently by announcing its competition which will reward the first carbon-neutral carrier to serve the airport.
But MAN must not be so naive as to reject airline business under the guise of environmental responsibility in the meantime. If they presume to socially-engineer customer travel habits by intervening to restrict the choice of leisure flights then they're in for a shock. Everyone who wants to fly from this region to Mallorca will still do so. But it will be from LPL if some eco-extremist at MAG presumes to play 'Nanny': the fossil fuels will still be consumed either way. Its just that jobs at MAN would be sacrificed so that some self-important climate zealot in an office can feel virtuous about their role in 'saving the planet'. And don't worry about cars and earning revenues from parking them either: mass-adoption of EV's is well on the way. [There is a debate about how to responsibly source electricity for charging up those too, but let's leave that one alone for now!].
Call me naive but I see LIverpool as a complimentary airport, not a competitor.
I'm not convinced that they reciprocate your view with such public-spirited generosity? Like it or not, they ARE the competition! And they know it. I hope that MAG execs see that too. :-)
LPL with a lower cost base can pick up that traffic, and if it means MAN 'loses' some traffic, then so be it.
LPL will enjoy their share of business wins based on their own proposition, but they should work for them. They should not be 'gifted' business which some at MAG consider to be beneath their dignity. Those are peoples' jobs we're talking about. Including ratepayers of the councils which share ownership of MAG itself.
Short clarification on Air India withdrawal some twenty or so years ago was because the GOI instructed them to redeploy their A310 aircraft on Expat flying to the desert region. These aircraft disappeared across Europe in one fell swoop as they compiled with the edicts from above .
There is a bit more to this. A corrosion issue was identified with the A300 fleet which meant that the A310's were required in a hurry to cover the shortfall. The MAN route was 'suspended', but when capacity did become available again BHX won the nod ahead of a return to MAN.