wanna be there / All,
First, just a housekeeping point. In the first quote you lifted from my posting, you removed the exclamation mark from the comment which says: "Ryanair being a possible exception!" By removing this essential piece of punctuation, one alters the way people will read the sentence. In my original version, it is a 'tongue-in-cheek' remark - Ryanair routinely offer colourful reasons for their whackier decisions and most readers on here know that. But in removing the exclamation mark, you alter the structure of the sentence making it read as a serious comment. The way you used the quote - curiously removing a punctuation mark and a close bracket - suggests to me that you thought through the effect on the reader that this subtle alteration would have. Naughty, naughty! Now if we're all going to have a constructive discussion here, lets not resort to petty wordplays please.
Moving on, let me be crystal clear here. I actually find the MAN travel experience to be very good all things considered, and I am keen to see it stay that way. MAN is my airport of choice and is likely to remain so whilst I am fit and able. If you search back through my posting history, you will find that I have at times stood accused of being a "Manchester Fanboy" for contributing comments which are generally perceived as favourable to MAN. So, I am not "down" on the place as you imply. But I do wish to see high standards maintained, and when I see that jeopardized I will highlight the problem which (IMO) needs to be addressed. My criticism of MAN in this discussion is NOT generic; it relates to one very specific issue which MAG can easily rectify if they choose to do so. The pursuit of excellence in a business requires that regular customers identify and point out perceived shortfalls; that is what I am doing in this case. For the most part, I praise the changes MAG management have made in improving the airport experience, but when they slip up they must not be treated as if they are above criticism.
"What about the fact we are winning awards, so someone seems to like MAN for all your tantrums."
May I invite you to look back a couple of pages to Suzeman's posting in which he links to news of MAN's latest award. Now look at my posting just below. I believe the words I used were "Excellent news." So lets keep things in perspective here. Nobody is having a tantrum; we are engaged in a serious discussion regarding one specific area of MAN's operation which could be done better. Or should I say - could be completely eradicated as an issue with a comparatively modest investment in motion sensors. I'm not saying they're cheap - I take your point - but taking the 'big picture' view MAG can easily afford them and the payback is self-evident.
So wanna be there, I know from your past posts that you have always championed what is best for MAN. I put it to you that my posting history shows that I am also supportive of MAN. But it is wrong to support MAN as one might cheer on a football team; this is not about blind loyalty. MAN is an asset to the area and a great business, but its management (like any other) is capable of making poor decisions from time to time. And when they do, those who really care about the place will point out the shortcomings and ask management to address them. Contributor 'Tight Seat' puts it well in his 10:27 posting. "Well, if its the travelators that are getting peoples backs up, the airport as a whole can't be doing too much wrong." SPOT ON! The airport is NOT doing too much wrong ... all the more reason to identify and correct those few remaining mistakes!
MAN management must remain aware that, as a comparatively large airport with long walking distances involved for the customers, ease of passage through the facility has to be treated as a priority. Older and less able people are generally aware of their physical limitations, and they will actively avoid an airport which they have found exhausting or traumatic in the past. So MAG needs to ensure that these customers have no reason to look back on their airport experience with negativity. That means that the travelators, escalators and lifts must be seen to work. We all know that occasional malfunctions can occur - most reasonable people will make allowances for that. But switching them off en masse to save money is another matter entirely. That needs to be addressed.
Skipness has answered a number of your points eloquently, so I will not duplicate what he has written. What I do say to you is that most contributors on this thread have the best interests of Manchester Airport at heart, so don't take discussion of certain specific issues personally. This is a forum which is used for the exchange of opinions amongst other things; we will all disagree on certain points of view, but healthy debate in pursuit of the greater good is a worthwhile thing. Ultimately, I want Manchester Airport to be the best it can be. I suspect that you want the same outcome. So shortcomings must be identified, discussed and put right. Is that such an offensive thing?
Regards, SHED.