The situation is that Manchester's regular widebody freight business dropped to such an extent that it no longer become viable
We're back to the 'chicken and egg' debate here. If you discourage and turn certain types of business away you can quickly reach the point where you can justify offloading support for that business because it has dropped in importance at the site! When you've turned the business away, you don't need to employ the staff who would have serviced that business under different circumstances. It is very easy to justify such cutbacks to observers who are unaware of the backstory. Of course, I note that your postings often reflect the views of one closely aligned with the specific interests of EMA in particular, so your defence of a status quo which sees MAN's inherent cargo business redirected there is understandable.
critics on the perftrmance of individual teams needs to put up or shut up.
My criticism of MAG has been quite measured. I have praised many areas of the business which have done an outstanding job under difficult circumstances. Sadly, cargo and the agency responsible for hangar lettings have performed poorly, and I see no harm in highlighting that. What is the point of praising a department which has delivered really well if they're then to observe you saying exactly the same of troubled sections which have clearly failed to meet the standards which a successful business should expect?
How much money are you prepared to spend on it?
Well, at an airport on the scale of MAN, I'd be prepared to spend enough to bring in two Hi-Lo's and ensure that sufficient staff are trained to operate them (delegating this to a third party handling agent if preferred). Given that MAN has a large cargo village on site already, costs need only be incurred at the margins. The fixed infrastructure is there. The competence has been there in the past. It's not like starting from scratch.
This discussion reminds me of uncomfortable parallels with a situation which occurred at MAN many years ago. A certain well known 'favourite airline' was minded to focus its prestige long-haul services at LHR. But they didn't want long-haul competitors to thrive at MAN in their absence. So they'd spread the word that long-haul would never be viable at MAN. And when an airline did appear on a route such as HKG, they would suddenly appear on the route as well - with timings very similar to the competing airline. But, in this case, that tactic didn't put off the competitor, so they switched their flights to different days of operation at very short notice. Passengers booked from MAN on the original days of operation were switched to a domestic connecting flight. Requests to change to the new MAN day of operation were refused with inflexible fare rules cited at booked passengers (yes, I recall this from sour first-hand experience). Of course, passenger loads on the new MAN days of operation were lamentable with negligible advance bookings in play. And so the service was withdrawn, because there obviously "wasn't demand for the route", right? Other long-haul routes were intentionally undermined to prove a point too. Well, Manchester Airport management were pretty unimpressed by some of the business practices they were subjected to back then.
Fast-forward to today. And - on cargo, at least - MAG themselves now seemingly operate in this way. Discourage the incumbent business. Switch sell leads away. Deflect enquiries. Say no. Then argue that MAN can't justify supporting that business any more because demand just ain't there in economic volumes. Oh, the irony. What would Sir Gil have said?
Can't help feeling that these "why is my local airport not getting these cargo flights?" frustrations are sometimes based more upon spotters missing out on registrations
Busted! Yes, we've no interest in preserving employment, supporting the region's economy, or optimising the business. We just want more reggies to jot down in our little notebooks. [SIGH ...].