Some really interesting points as always from Ozzy and others.
I am not entirely convinced that Options One and Two are unreconcilable. The majority shareholders in MAG are still the local councils and they are interested in protecting those jobs as in many cases they are also their council tax payers and contributors to the local economy. Not forgetting domestic and overseas visitors to the area bringing additional spending power to the north. In more normal times, the airport makes returns for those councils so a sensible balance needs to be struck in protecting the interests of Manchester and the surrounding area whilst allowing the management team to do what they are employed to do.
MAG is very adept at sweating their assets and in the current situation will continue to do so. Those who call for a wholesale rebuild or even a reconfiguration of T1 and T3 are likely to be out of luck for now. Whilst nobody would argue that it is a laudable idea and much needed, there is simply no revenue right now to pay for it. The little money coming in at present should surely be funnelled into keeping the business alive and protecting as many of those jobs as possible for the longer term.
The commercial team for MAG is headed by someone with a background at Ryanair so I would imagine the ability to do deals is within his capability. The LCCs will undoubtedly return quickest along with charter outfits. The decision on slot use for next summer may determine what happens around any immediate long haul return but profitable traffic is unlikely to return for a few more seasons I suspect.
On the environment it is good to see MAG leading the way but I agree it should not be at the expense of commercial traffic. I don’t see it as an issue in that government policy will need to lead on this in the long term whilst airports and airlines will fall in line.
In the short term there is some significant pain (as with the entire aviation industry) and retrenchment but I would suggest both MAG and MAN have a bright future.