'Momentary Lapse' - I must take issue with two remarks made in your posting of 13 February timed at 15:12.
Firstly, in relation to past staff recruitment you write: "shame they were all white middle class men." Do you not see that this remark is both racist and sexist? It is completely unacceptable. If you have evidence that a better qualified candidate for a post was overlooked on the grounds of gender or skin colour then present it here. However, if the best qualified candidates were actually selected for the post(s) then why does it matter whether they are white, male or 'middle-class' (whatever that means these days). I put it to you that qualifications, aptitude and experience are the important factors in recruitment, not the three criteria you mention. It may have escaped your notice that approximately 90% of males in Britain are white; therefore they will comprise the largest part of the workforce. The opposite is the case in many other countries. Whatever the demographics, all potential employees have the right to be selected based on their suitability for the job, not upon narrow objectives imposed by a racist or sexist agenda. I will defend the right of ALL - including white males - to be employed according to their skills and aptitude alone.
On a quite different matter, you write about "rape of the countryside with the white elephant of R2." Firstly, may I suggest that you take a walk along the public footpath which parallels Runway 24L/06R on the South-Side. Look closely. What you will find is a remarkable piece of land now protected from the encroachment by the general public which is teeming with wildlife. The fenced-off area has become a nature reserve in it's own right (partly due to MAplc investment, by the way). I am not well-informed as a naturalist, but friends advise me that many species thrive on this land which are threatened elsewhere due to loss of hedgerows and encroachment by man. Take a good look and compare this land with the business parks, new roads and car parks which lie outside the airport boundary. Just where is the "rape of the countryside" again?
Within the same remark above you refer to R2 as a "white elephant". Again, I beg to differ. Note that throughout 2005 MAN's runway capacity was fully-allocated for long periods of the day, especially during Summer months. MAN has been able to accept business which could never have been available to the region in the days of a single-runway operation. This has been massively positive for employment and economic development in the North-West. I am the first to acknowledge that MAN is facing a downturn in traffic for 2006 (with oil at $60-$70bbl we won't be alone), but not to the extent that single runway ops would meet demand at crucial periods of the day. And if you really want to know what R2 has done for the environment, consider this rarely mentioned gem: the availability of twin-runway ops at MAN has MASSIVELY reduced air-holding for inbound traffic. Prior to R2 it was not unusual to have 12 inbound airliners at any given moment flying race-track patterns at BOLIN (remember BOLIN?) and DAYNE during the 0700-1000 and 1700-1900 periods; nowadays extended air-holding is extremely rare on a routine basis. Air-holding for MAN is now at a fraction of past levels, save for the inevitable low-vis days. So next time the 'greens' call R2 a "rape of the countryside" tell them about the huge reduction in air-holding. 10 minutes less fuel burned per peak-time inbound. Less waiting time at the holding point per outbound. Now THAT'S a positive contribution to the environment.
Cheers, SHED.