Brian,
From 1970 the airport has grown continually both physically and in terms of passenger numbers. From then until the late 1990s, in many senses it was a building site with an attached runway yet the passenger experience - and that of the airlines - was generally pleasant.
At a meeting I attended in 1983 with airport management, politicians, tourism professionals and airline representatives (both operators at MAN and not) the attendees could only come up with one substantial complaint about the passenger experience viz: only one bank, (Midland Bank) and only open normal banking hours. Apart from that the airport, which was winning award on top of award and seeing continuous passenger growth, was held up a a shining example of how an international airport should be run - and not only at that meeting.
In 1993 I had my company run an Airports Environment Conference in the then brand new T2 with a major trade magazine and, whilst the airport supplied speakers and a little hospitality, they were not sponsors..
With representation from over 100 major airports around the world, including all of those you name, the magazine took the trouble to survey the delegates for their view of the airport in areas ranging from environment to use of space, passenger experience (over 90% of the delegates flew into the airport, many of the rest used the brand new station) amenities and the general ambience.
In all areas it scored in in the top two out of eight ratings from poor, through acceptable to exemplary. The written comments many appended were summed up as "glowing".
Putting Manchester down by referring to it in the following terms:
The fact is that MAN is a regional airport.
shows either a lack of research or just pure prejudice.
As of the end of 2008 with reduced passenger numbers, it was the fourth busiest airport in the UK with 21.2 million passengers. No "regional" UK airport comes near.
It had the third highest movements of all UK airports and, in 2007 - the last year for which I have figures - it was the
22nd busiest airport for international passengers in the world - it had reached 17th in 2005.
The percentage of scheduled passengers as opposed to IT and GA passengers rose from around 40% in 1992 to 63% in 2007 and Manchester still offers more destinations and direct routes than any other single UK airport.
If it is a regional, it is ahead of any other regional in Europe in terms of numbers and facilities.
So quit bit**ing about a few new shops and stained carpets
It's a lot more than that I'm afraid. In terms of passenger experience, in the past - say up to the late 1990s - extensions, reworking and maintenance were done with the minimum disruption to passengers. Signing was comprehensive, explicit and showed what was where. The terminals were light, airy, had plenty of seating and outside views both before and after security. There was a good range of shops, banking facilities had been upgraded and the hours changed to suit the passenger but the facilities were far from the current "in your face" obstruction they form today.
Then certain layers of management started to retire changing the way the airport was run.
The founding of MAG in 2001, whilst from one perspective can be viewed as a logical business decision, from another can only be viewed as a disaster from the point of view of Manchester Airport itself. The focus shifted from making profits through providing access to air transportation to making profits from a range of diverse and sometimes unconnected business activities.
What real benefit are Bournemouth and Humberside to the local councils in the erstwhile Greater Manchester when the airport which was once the jewel in the crown of the City and then the County is, from a passenger's point of view, an ugly mess of security, shopping malls and uncomfortable holding areas?
EMA has seen success as a freight centre - so has Manchester - but the debt incurred and used to buy EMA could have been better spent at MAN, extending the rail line to the World Freight Centre and offering a truly multi modal centre, using the expertise in freight handling to attract operators (including those at EMA) and give employment to the citizens of the stakeholder local authorities.
I would dispute that Manchester needs a strong home airline. Boston, Vancouver, Los Angeles, Miami, Dusseldorf, Milan, Munich, have all prospered in recent years without a strong, home based carrier by attracting a range of operators serving a wide variety of routes - often with two or more in direct competition.
The management at MAN need to use the current downturn to draw breath and rethink their strategies. They made the wrong decision about LCCs and have seen traffic (mine included) both drift away and cease to grow as the "new" travellers have used, particularly, Liverpool.
T1 is, as far as I'm concerned, depressing, .T2 has not been regularly upgraded. At 16 years old, were it an hotel, it would have just had its third revamp and T3 is a cramped joke - the old domestic pier was a far more enjoyable experience.
I well remember the doom and gloom of 1973/4 - but the traffic bounced back.. 1981/2 saw similar times as did the early 1990s. 9/11 wasn't as bad but each time the airport grew in the aftermath.
This time the challenges are bigger but I'm not convinced the management is aviation minded and focussed enough to benefit from the end of recession when it eventually comes, in the same way as in the past.
In fact, freight and the viewing park apart, I'm at a loss to credit them with anything new that the current directors have overseen from start to finish that has REALLY worked since the inception of MAG.