MANCHESTER - 7
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haha, Rowena got out at the right time. Good girl!
What's the difference between Geoff Muirhead and Gordon Brown?
Nothing: unelected, unwanted, past his retirement date, presiding over decline and dithering. Come the revolution...
What's the difference between Geoff Muirhead and Gordon Brown?
Nothing: unelected, unwanted, past his retirement date, presiding over decline and dithering. Come the revolution...
What are you babbling about MS?
GB was elected MP for the Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath seat with 58% of the vote.
In the UK we do not 'elect' prime ministers we elect MPs who are then elected by their party to be top MP. (agreed not necessarily in that order).
All the parties do it, end of.
Before you ask, no I do not agree with many of the current government policies, but I'm sick to death of hearing the same old tired "he wasn't elected' cobblers from the Daily Liar reading brigade.
GB was elected MP for the Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath seat with 58% of the vote.
In the UK we do not 'elect' prime ministers we elect MPs who are then elected by their party to be top MP. (agreed not necessarily in that order).
All the parties do it, end of.
Before you ask, no I do not agree with many of the current government policies, but I'm sick to death of hearing the same old tired "he wasn't elected' cobblers from the Daily Liar reading brigade.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not babbling, comparing.
Not elected to the position of Prime Minister, i.e. when chosen to lead the Labour Party (by intimidating the other potential candidates not to stand) he should have then called a General Election to let the electorate have their say. He bottled it at that point, and has persisted in leading us further down a garden path of his choosing, still without allowing the British (in fact mostly English, but I won't go there) people to have their say on whether they want him to, or not.
Like Geoff, chosen by a cabal of councillors, yet the majority stakeholders in the PLC, which these days are the banks, are given no say. Ditto the staff or customers, though I accept they rarely get a say in any other organisation either.
More importantly, they're both leading their respective organisations down the toilet without anyone being able or willing to stop them.
Rowena=Blair - can read the wind and got out in time with reputation intact (ish).
Not elected to the position of Prime Minister, i.e. when chosen to lead the Labour Party (by intimidating the other potential candidates not to stand) he should have then called a General Election to let the electorate have their say. He bottled it at that point, and has persisted in leading us further down a garden path of his choosing, still without allowing the British (in fact mostly English, but I won't go there) people to have their say on whether they want him to, or not.
Like Geoff, chosen by a cabal of councillors, yet the majority stakeholders in the PLC, which these days are the banks, are given no say. Ditto the staff or customers, though I accept they rarely get a say in any other organisation either.
More importantly, they're both leading their respective organisations down the toilet without anyone being able or willing to stop them.
Rowena=Blair - can read the wind and got out in time with reputation intact (ish).
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Momentary lapse, or should that be Permanent lapse?
From the MAG website:
Our shareholders are:
The Council of the City of Manchester - 55%
The Borough Council of Bolton - 5%
The Borough Council of Bury - 5%
The Oldham Borough Council - 5%
The Rochdale Borough Council - 5%
The Council of the City of Salford - 5%
The Metropolitan Borough Council of Stockport - 5%
The Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council - 5%
The Trafford Borough Council - 5%
The Wigan Borough Council - 5%
Seems to me that comes to 100% - so how do you arrive at the following:
and what sort of lunatic would give any bank any say in a business today?
I hold no brief for the way the airport is currently managed, but you are babbling.
From the MAG website:
Our shareholders are:
The Council of the City of Manchester - 55%
The Borough Council of Bolton - 5%
The Borough Council of Bury - 5%
The Oldham Borough Council - 5%
The Rochdale Borough Council - 5%
The Council of the City of Salford - 5%
The Metropolitan Borough Council of Stockport - 5%
The Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council - 5%
The Trafford Borough Council - 5%
The Wigan Borough Council - 5%
Seems to me that comes to 100% - so how do you arrive at the following:
yet the majority stakeholders in the PLC, which these days are the banks, are given no say.
I hold no brief for the way the airport is currently managed, but you are babbling.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cargocat said:
Ever heard of teaching your grandmother to suck eggs?
Any stake the banks have would be in the form of loans. Those loans do not (and should not) allow them to have a say in the running of an "arms length" local authority owned operation.
The other "stakeholders" are, in fact, the airport's customers - leasing space, buying gate and ramp time or providing the airport with an on site service - none of whom have, or should have, a say in the running of the company.
If the shareholders aren't doing a good job of overseeing the way the company is managed, it is up to the council tax payers in the Metropolitan Boroughs to have their councillors take up the matter and for the so called stakeholders (customers) to complain or vote with their feet.
There is a difference between Stakeholder and Shareholder.
Any stake the banks have would be in the form of loans. Those loans do not (and should not) allow them to have a say in the running of an "arms length" local authority owned operation.
The other "stakeholders" are, in fact, the airport's customers - leasing space, buying gate and ramp time or providing the airport with an on site service - none of whom have, or should have, a say in the running of the company.
If the shareholders aren't doing a good job of overseeing the way the company is managed, it is up to the council tax payers in the Metropolitan Boroughs to have their councillors take up the matter and for the so called stakeholders (customers) to complain or vote with their feet.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would suggest you read your own post before trying to belittle anyone.
My Grandmother was well off enough as not to resort to sucking eggs, She employed her own egg suckers.
You posted the make up of the shareholders of MAPLC whereas the comments were about the stakeholders which due to the level of borrowings by MAPLC includes the banks.
As for babbling you seem to take the top spot.
Good day to you Sir
My Grandmother was well off enough as not to resort to sucking eggs, She employed her own egg suckers.
You posted the make up of the shareholders of MAPLC whereas the comments were about the stakeholders which due to the level of borrowings by MAPLC includes the banks.
As for babbling you seem to take the top spot.
Good day to you Sir
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thankyou Cargocat.
I specifically referred to stakeholders not shareholders for a reason.
It has been known for years that the shareholders have no teeth, happy to take the dividends without any real governance.
Once MAPLC mortgaged its debt-free business to buy EMA and BOH by over 100% of MAN's capital value, the banks rightly insisted on a say in how the company was run. They did this principally by replacing the existing FD with Philip Ridal, a City of London type, who would bring some semblance of competence to the previously amateurish corporate governance standards.
The other stakeholders (tenants, airlines, retailers etc.) absolutely have a say in how the company is run, not least because their own businesses depend on MAN being run well. Never mind the council tax payers: many of them only fly once a year, if at all, and some of them have no idea how a company should be run.
Following my own logic, perhaps the way forward for MAPLC is for the councils to sell their shares to airlines, retailers etc. who might have more idea how to run it well, not to mention a business-led motive to do so. Just a thought.
I specifically referred to stakeholders not shareholders for a reason.
It has been known for years that the shareholders have no teeth, happy to take the dividends without any real governance.
Once MAPLC mortgaged its debt-free business to buy EMA and BOH by over 100% of MAN's capital value, the banks rightly insisted on a say in how the company was run. They did this principally by replacing the existing FD with Philip Ridal, a City of London type, who would bring some semblance of competence to the previously amateurish corporate governance standards.
The other stakeholders (tenants, airlines, retailers etc.) absolutely have a say in how the company is run, not least because their own businesses depend on MAN being run well. Never mind the council tax payers: many of them only fly once a year, if at all, and some of them have no idea how a company should be run.
Following my own logic, perhaps the way forward for MAPLC is for the councils to sell their shares to airlines, retailers etc. who might have more idea how to run it well, not to mention a business-led motive to do so. Just a thought.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: England
Age: 59
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Momentary collapse
'They did this principally by replacing the existing FD with Philip Ridal, a City of London type, who would bring some semblance of competence to the previously amateurish corporate governance standards.'
.........and he's doing a bloody good job too!!
You forgot to add?
MM
'They did this principally by replacing the existing FD with Philip Ridal, a City of London type, who would bring some semblance of competence to the previously amateurish corporate governance standards.'
.........and he's doing a bloody good job too!!
You forgot to add?
MM
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I deliberately didn't add it, because although he did a damn fine job while he was there (specifically improving the company's debt rating, allowing their interest rate to be significantly lowered, reducing costs) he left a long time ago, lured back to the bright lights of the big city. A loss to the company, certainly.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Manchester
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mickyman...
Just to clarify, you are saying that the likes of Atlanta, New York, Chicago, Houston, Shanghai etc etc are all regional airports.....and if thats the case your first comment of :
Getting to be more like a 'regional' airport with every
passing month!
is total $hite !!! because by your reasoning it always has been and always will be a regional airport, coz Manchester aint the captial of England.
Unless i am getting confuddled !!!
Just to clarify, you are saying that the likes of Atlanta, New York, Chicago, Houston, Shanghai etc etc are all regional airports.....and if thats the case your first comment of :
Getting to be more like a 'regional' airport with every
passing month!
is total $hite !!! because by your reasoning it always has been and always will be a regional airport, coz Manchester aint the captial of England.
Unless i am getting confuddled !!!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manchester cannot be compared with New York, Atlanta, Houston, Shanghai or even Munich. These are hub airports. Nobody hubs at Manchester anymore it is a "Spoke" for BA, KLM, Air France, Lufthansa, Swiss, Emirates, Qatar, Continental et al.
Manchester is a regional airport, a major one at that. Remember that the above airports do not have the high proportion of charter or lo-cost passengers that Manchester has.
Manchester is a regional airport, a major one at that. Remember that the above airports do not have the high proportion of charter or lo-cost passengers that Manchester has.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: CEG
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wow...come on kids!
Jeez..what's going on on here recently, it's all sniping.
Anyone got any genuine rumours?
Here's my two pence worth...EK to introduce First Class on the MAN route...discuss.
Anyone got any genuine rumours?
Here's my two pence worth...EK to introduce First Class on the MAN route...discuss.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So Cargoman and Momentary Lapse, you believe that business that partially depend on their leased property at/services to the airport should have a say in how the company is run.
Give me strength. On that basis, as a tax payer I should have a personal say in how every government department is run, every shop in the Trafford Centre should have a say in how Peel Holdings does its business and, within aviation, your idea for Manchester should apply to every airport worldwide.
For decades the airport has been run for the benefit of, firstly, the City ratepayers, in the last 35 years for the benefit of those in first the GMC, then the Metropolitan Boroughs - and still is.
The current management isn't doing very well but having management by committee turns racehorses into camels.
Selling the airport would lead to an even worse performance. Your "stakeholders" know bu**er all about running an airport.
British corporate history is littered with companies succesful in one discipline making an absolute shambles of businesses in other disciplines which they have taken over on the basis that "management is the same in any industry".
As for banks being more involved - don't you read the papers or watch the news on TV?
What is needed are Councillors like the long lamemted Gordon Thomas who had the airport at heart, kept the management under close scrutiny and wasn't afraid to scrutinise, praise and criticise in equal measure.
Gordon Sweetapple once said to me that the airport had a reputation for good management because it was managed by an excellent mix of industry professionals, professional local government officers who had learned about aviation from their earliest days and was overseen by councillors determined to make the most of their asset and both improve and develop it on a continuing basis, something currently that seems to have diminished and would be totally lost if sold to a faceless company from elsewhere.
Give me strength. On that basis, as a tax payer I should have a personal say in how every government department is run, every shop in the Trafford Centre should have a say in how Peel Holdings does its business and, within aviation, your idea for Manchester should apply to every airport worldwide.
For decades the airport has been run for the benefit of, firstly, the City ratepayers, in the last 35 years for the benefit of those in first the GMC, then the Metropolitan Boroughs - and still is.
The current management isn't doing very well but having management by committee turns racehorses into camels.
Selling the airport would lead to an even worse performance. Your "stakeholders" know bu**er all about running an airport.
British corporate history is littered with companies succesful in one discipline making an absolute shambles of businesses in other disciplines which they have taken over on the basis that "management is the same in any industry".
As for banks being more involved - don't you read the papers or watch the news on TV?
What is needed are Councillors like the long lamemted Gordon Thomas who had the airport at heart, kept the management under close scrutiny and wasn't afraid to scrutinise, praise and criticise in equal measure.
Gordon Sweetapple once said to me that the airport had a reputation for good management because it was managed by an excellent mix of industry professionals, professional local government officers who had learned about aviation from their earliest days and was overseen by councillors determined to make the most of their asset and both improve and develop it on a continuing basis, something currently that seems to have diminished and would be totally lost if sold to a faceless company from elsewhere.