Shed,
Ryanair being a possible exception! Ryanair being a possible exception.
Firstly the quote lift was a genuine mistake. I dont know how to use the 'qoute' feature on here, and missing off the end was a mistake, as you will notice I also missed off the end bracket. Also, how on earth can you read the quote wrongly? Either you are saying Ryanir pulled out due to the infrastructure or you werent?
Im not attempting to sway anybody, im just trying to make sense of why such a minor issue is being made out to be so huge?
Lastly, to sum up your last part of the post. All I am saying is that people seem to be making a huge issue over the lack of a travelator.
Im trying to put forward that there are ALWAYS alternatives, as MAG will have studied before making this decision.
Do you think they are sitting in Olympic house, looking down at the skylink seeing an elderly woman struggling due to the lack of a travelator, and laughing?
Now, I know many many who travel through MAN, and the travelators are the last things on their mind. Does anyone even consider MAN may have conducted a survey asking pax if it was a good idea to switch the escalators off for x period of the day? Just because nobody here was asked doesnt mean it didnt happen.
MAG is working hard to improve pax experience, and if the vast majority see the switching off of escalators see it as a bad idea, do you really think they would do it.
What you also have to consider is, MAN as an airport is under attack from many angles. You have the tax situation/competition (meaning it has to do more to attract pax), it has the green lobbists and then what the airlines want. Sometimes sacrifices have to be made, sometimes it will do something that annoys you, but you have to remember what happens behind the scenes.
This comment:
If MAG's policies give customers reason to prefer the experience at a rival airport (or train / coach / ferry travel etc), the effects will eventually trickle down to employment prospects in various departments at MAN. Airline load factors and yields from Manchester rely fundamentally on MAG providing an airport experience which customers will be happy to book again and again on a regular basis. If the customer chooses an alternative for future journeys, those ex-MAN airseats risk remaining unsold.
Got me. Now I know you state policies in general, but is being used in the travelator arguement. I would love to know how many pax MAN looses per year due to lack of a travelator. It just makes no sense. If the airport was a constant building site, or a huge maze, or had constant 4 hour queues for security, then Id be the first to question about whats going on, but its a TRAVELATOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We used to cope without them before, what is it that is stopping us from coping again, or is it the typical attitude that people want everything done for them, including walking?
I know quite a few business pax, and they could not care less about the airport in general, its just point A or point B for them. Most families I know arrive by car/taxi, so get picked up dropped off outside and I must add, 9 times out of 10 that I have arrived via the rail hub, the travelators have been working, so dont see what the issue is any way.
I think my main frustration though, is just some of the arguements that take place on here, drawing back to the whole Etihad issue. I just wonder whether pax sometimes expect too much, or whether it is MAN's fault for setting its standards too high.
Either way, I think the issue should be dropped. MAG have made their decision, pax will continue to use the airport and no amount of bickering on here is going to change that.