Originally Posted by
OzzyOzBorn
It certainly does seem to be at MAN. But not at just about every other airport. And aircraft require all the same support services you mention at those. Everywhere else seems to be coping fine, and I don't think their staff are more handsomely remunerated than their Manchester counterparts.
MAN is uniquely FAILING in this respect, and that is a matter for concern. Repeated failure is unacceptable and should be addressed by management. But I see no urgency from MAG to address those areas of the operation which undermine the good work done by other departments at MAN. Reputation is always driven by those areas of the business which let the side down.
BTW, the 'tech' aircraft which you cite is exempt from any dynamic diversion decision-making process. A flight which declares an emergency CAN land. That's the rule. So the question of whether the airport operator would want to accept it or not is moot. And, of course, an aircraft which diverts in with a technical problem runs the risk of sticking around for a while. That's what 'tech' implies. If a non-emergency aircraft wishes to divert for technical reasons, that can be taken into consideration when a decision is made.
Yes, I'm well aware of the definition of 'tech'.
Perhaps the reason other airports are not in the same position as MAN could be down to many factors. EG. What are the employment opportunities outside the airport? I do know of several people who have left airport work to pursue careers elsewhere. Reasons given, better pay, t&cs, not having to get up at 3AM to work double shifts.
This is not MAG's fault. Point the finger instead at the low cost airlines who insist on paying peanuts and demanding the Earth. (Jet2 saw what was happening and took everything in house, a very good move IMO). But the knock on effect is plain to see.