[QUOTE=MAN777;11164827]
Re contamination of RW2
At the time the excuse was wait for it, "oil dripping on the tarmac and causing contamination, "hang on, we are not talking, B707s, DC8s and Coronados", damn those " leaky old 787s and A380s", in terms of an excuse that did seem something of a stretch, maybe a reduction in rates is more plausible ? although quite why other airports didn't take that route is open to question./QUOTE]
The majority of RW 2 is Asphalt/Bitumen which as you probably know can soften and degrade if it comes into contact with solvents (Jet A1, Hydraulic fluid, Oil.)
I think keeping RW2 expensive surface in pristine condition is a good call.
Many thanks MAN777, for the record no i wasn't aware of that fact, but was arguing that again issues that seem highly specific to Manchester don't appear to be as prominent at
other airports.
Many UK airports utilised all available space during the full lockdown and presumably had a financial incentive to do that despite risk to taxiway surfaces. I accept that taxiways however may be of a different material and therefore that is indeed a different argument.
If Manchester has indeed gained substantial revenues in other ways without compromise that is actually to be applauded.