To take your points in order -
1) He was wearing a bright orange hi-viz vest saying "Head of Airport Services". I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the last word but it quite clearly beagan and ended with S. I doubt that many at LPL wear these.
2) I have NOT criticised ground staff, I think they were perfectly correct in refusing to work in icy conditions and it was encumbent on the airport to observe their duty of care to those staff to provide a safe working environment, they failed to do so.
I am aware that EZY, as well as many others, cancelled flights due to weather factors, not operational expediency eg it was not tech problems, I met several pax at AMS who were stranded, but I can only comment on the circumstances around my flight, nobody else's as I was not involved in them. That many were adversely affected should not deflect from my valid criticism of the airport's unpreparedness to fully accept incoming flights in circumstances that were not only forseeable but had been forecast days before, I had been watching various forecasts, including the BBC, which all pointed towards severe weather, Amsterdam on saturday was at -10C and sunday was not a great deal better. This severe weather was all across northern Europe and going into Spain and Italy, did LPL think it would exist in a bubble? You may be correct in saying no major airport was unaffected but what has that to do with the price of fish? I was talking about LPL. In the same way I consider your introduction of hypothetical situations to be specious, I am commenting on what ACTUALLY happened.
3) Like yourself I am a frequent flier, mostly out of MAN, LPL, BFS, GLA & LBA on both short and long haul. I am also ex-RAF and have seen first hand the preparations to be made in case of adverse weather, there should be no difference between military and commercial airfield preparations for adverse conditions.Your mention of pay I see as a red herring, the person making the decisions as to whether to anti-ice or not should be someone on min wage don't you think? The staff did indeed turn up but were not prepared to risk their health and safety because someone on far more money than them had made the wrong decision.
The emergency services were so unable to cope they had firemen shovelling snow from the path to enable pax to disembark safely. erroneous point harbour.
4) The forecasts generally were correct. Additionally, the airport ops side will have had access to more detailed forecasting than available to us and there should have been reports coming from the ground as to deteriorating conditions.
5)I appreciate the hard work of all but criticise the plonker who made the wrong anti-ice decision. What your mates think is entirely a matter for them.
6) I will pay whatever it takes, I can only do so if it is asked but locos such as RYR demand lower & lower fees. This may result in airports making penny pinching decisions such as not spending on anti-ice fluid and manpower to spread it. If the ticket price becomes too high for me to afford I wont fly, easy. No axe to grind other that against the plonker who made the wrong call.
7) If your local authority provides inadequate services you should take it up with them, if you want crap services/facilities because you are too tight to pay for any better that is up to you, I take a different view. In this case the airport may have undertaken a cost/risk exercise but they got it wrong, in this case the risk would fall to the ground handlers had they continued t work but hey, life is cheap, that's why we pay them so little?
I doubt what you want would be palatable to any airport on the cost element alone.
Now try it on aircraft safety basis, no matter how rare.
My preference is for a Merry and safe Xmas.