I've been watching the debate on cargo for the last few days, and one or two recent posts have prompted a response.
Turin, you are absolutely right that it's the massive cuts in scheduled and charter flights that have laid the industry low. However, many airports and airlines struggling as a result have taken to cargo-only flights as a means of offsetting that downturn. I doubt that one very sizeable and well-known UK airline would still be here in December 2020 were it not for the amount of cargo-only operations that it has flown. The point is, I believe, not whether there have been job losses as a result of the alleged MAN/MAG policy towards cargo, but whether jobs put at risk through the passenger side could have been saved if a different approach had been taken on cargo. Reading all of this, it certainly sounds as though there is a case to answer.
If MAG have been directing cargo to EMA, and several cargo operations have politely declined that offer and gone to Liverpool, Doncaster and elsewhere instead, then it is fair for those who wish to see their airport bounce back from this pandemic as quickly as possible to feel somewhat aggrieved. For those whose jobs depend on the airport, they have cause to feel even more aggrieved. In this case, it is a matter for MAG to make decisions and for airlines to react to them. The MAG policy seems misguided and short-sighted to me. A debate on PPruNe won't change that, but I have every sympathy with those who believe they are seeing opportunities pass the airport by and are getting rather upset about the impact on an airport about which they care deeply, and upon which many depend for a living.