Navpi
I would urge some nuance on comments of this nature. Frustration is understandable, but many departments within MAG (and specifically at MAN) have been doing an admirable job under unprecedented constraints.
The Transformation Plan team has done an outstanding job. To more than double the operational size of T2 whilst keeping the legacy operation running smoothly throughout the construction programme was an immense and under-appreciated achievement. Yes, we can argue about budget constraints, but the team on the spot did a stunning job with the resources allocated to them. The new section of T2 is a valuable asset helping to secure MAN's long-term future, and no passengers were disrupted by its delivery. (Though afew more respite seats along the lengthy transit routes / queueing areas would be appreciated!). The remodelling of the airport's airside layout is another unrecognised achievement. Great work by the team delivering that. Security at MAN has faced a lot of criticism in the past, but huge positive strides had been made long before Covid decimated the crowds. And MAN's retail and catering offering (loved by some, loathed by others!) is up there with the best in the business. The routes team did an outstanding job too. Management of the day-to-day operation has generally been positive across the board.
So let's deliver due criticism with precision rather than taking a generic "Manchester Airport management is rubbish" approach. There are two underperforming areas of the business at MAN (Covid excepted). Firstly, the agency responsible for hangar lettings has been an abject disaster. The loss of Air Livery (effectively forced out, some suggest?) was a monumental blunder, resulting in many quality jobs being avoidably lost to the region. And the debacle concerning a large established aircraft maintenance provider allegedly seeing a hangar tenancy gazzumped from under them, even as they were recruiting highly-skilled engineering jobs, ranks with the largest blunders in the entire history of Manchester Airport in my view. Just what has the new "preferred" tenant delivered in their place? Did they renege? Are those responsible for this abject decision still in post? What is being done to recover something from the ruins? If an outside agency was responsible, has legal action for damages been taken against them? How many hundreds of highly-skilled jobs has this cost the airport campus?
The other area of persistent failure at MAN is FLOWN-CARGO, specifically support for dedicated freighter aircraft. The arguments have all been discussed in depth on here, so nothing to be gained by re-running that debate. But, to my knowledge, there is still not even one hi-lo on site. Cornish continues to "fiddle whilst Rome burns", seemingly content to allow MAN to continue descent into irrelevance in the global flown-cargo stakes. I fear that responsibility for this open wound goes right to the top of MAG group level here. Cornish appears to believe that that the status quo on cargo is acceptable. In terms of MAG's corporate balance sheet he may be able to argue that, but an airport is a utility serving it's region, and an equitable balance must be struck between feeding MAG's bottom line and providing the level of service the North's primary gateway deserves. Total failure on this. And one can't blame the cargo "switch-sell" team at East Midlands and Stansted: they're doing what they're instructed to do. MAG needs to re-assess this at the highest level, or Mr Cornish's legacy will be remembered as a very patchy one.
The buck stops at the summit of MAG. Mr Cornish: please consider allocating some management time to sorting out MAN's two disaster zones. The terrible impression which their abject performance leaves results in comments such as that quoted above: generic condemnation of MAN's management en masse. That is soul-destroying for those comprising the many departments which have pulled out all the stops to deliver a great job. They merit positive recognition. From a management perspective, you have two not-fit-for-purpose departments in the MAN operation which require a root-and-branch reorganisation. Perhaps the recent 'hangar to let' advertisement is an early indication that something is finally being done to recover the situation. I guess it is too much to hope that the previously gazzumped tenant might be attracted back ... if they've vowed never to work with MAG again one could scarcely blame them, given what was alleged to have happened. And the early impression is that MAG backed a duffer with their preferred replacement hangar tenant.