A short romantic novel about how not to run an airport

Manchester Airport has long been an embarrassment. A sensory throwback to the 90s, with escalators out of action (to save money) and free water (if you're ok with it coming from the ceiling). Their "Transformation Programme" has been paused and we now have a Frankenstein terminal that offers a glimpse of the future, and the smell of the past. Things will always be better tomorrow, but tomorrow never comes.

?

You've probably read the press coverage about the omnishambles around check-in and security and felt for the people who were trapped and troubled in endless queues. This morning my always-there frustration at the UK's 4th busiest, and 39th worst, airport boiled over.?

My mum (a spritely 78) arrived at the airport at 1:30am for a 6:10am flight. After three hours of queueing, she collapsed and was taken to hospital. She hadn't even made it through security (she even had fast track) but she had got as far as the body scanning machine - the one where you do the Y of YMCA. She took a tumble inside it, followed by another tumble outside of it, followed by a free mini-bus to A&E.?

She's doing ok. At this stage, they think it was stress-related, lack of water, the sort of things that thrive in a poorly run airport. Multiple hours in a queue isn't great, and she got to the airport really early because - unlike MAN - she plans ahead. She said the response from the staff on the ground was amazing, as you'd expect from them.

Sadly she won't be alone: missed flights, missed holidays, hundreds of thousands if not millions of pounds lost by people who just wanted to travel but who couldn't make it through the airport on time or who pass out when trying. Heartache, paperwork, and airlines/hotels saying "computer says no" to refunds. What a waste.?

But are we really responsible if it's entirely our responsibility?

The response from the leadership team at MAN throughout this crisis has been to blame everyone but themselves; it's COVID, it's passenger numbers, it's Swissport, Menzies, The Hamburglar. Anyone but us guvnor.??

Yet MAN operates in an industry that is built on forward planning. Planes don't just rock up to an airport, flights are planned months in advance. The size of an aircraft is a useful indication of how many passengers will be on it.??

Staff shortages: even a first-round exit'er on the Apprentice would know that after two years of COVID "being a thing" then a percentage of staff would be off with COVID. So you could build that into a plan, have a chat with your mates at other airports for insight, work out an expected % of sick days, and put in place hiring/sub-contracting processes well in advance to give you cover for the inevitable.?

"But it's not us here at Manchester Airport, it's [Insert Wierd Company Name You've Never Heard Of]". A myriad of companies operate behind the scenes at MAN - and every airport. People like Swissport, Menzies, dnata. They do important things like check-in passengers, throw baggage around and guide planes away from things that damage planes.?

This is a neat and tidy passing of the buck from MAN, but in the style of Wagatha Christie: the entity that contracts companies is....Manchester Airport. If a supplier is falling apart then step in and apply emergency measures.?If it's the airline that contracts them (as is the case sometimes) then step in.

"...but we need to give new members of staff their training and get them through security clearance". This 4-week process will have been in place for years. How could someone not foresee these issues? It feels like a lack of desire to throw money at a problem when the only fix is to throw money at the problem.?

Turn The Graph Upside Down And Profits Are Rising

MAN, like most regional airports, doesn't make its profits from planes landing or taking off. The primary source is extras; lounges, parking, duty-free and food. Two of those four streams rely on passengers getting past security quickly, so they can spend money on breakfast barms or Issey Miyake.?

If you're thinking that there's a relationship between the average time for a passenger to get through security and the average ancillary revenue per passenger, then you're probably right. So it's confusing as to why MAN isn't focused on the constant risk of queues building, and revenue falling and doesn't have a strategy that's future-proofed.?

One revenue-generating product I've missed out is Fast-track. Pay ￡5, skip the security queue on your outbound flight. MAN has had the common sense to block new bookings for this service whilst they struggle.

A Building Says

MAN's MD quit two days ago to "pursue fresh opportunities". In the middle of the worst public relations crisis at the airport. Imagine taking the public penny (and IMHO it is the public, and public demand for travel and freight, that pays the salaries of the management team) then you decide to bail out in the midst of an uber-mess. Even when viewed through a monochrome airport x-ray machine it's not a good look.?

And then yesterday The Guardian reported that, during the first year of COVID, pay for MAG (MAN's parent company) managers rose by 23% YoY, whilst it had asked employees to reduce their salaries by 10% and also laid off staff. At the start of COVID MAG stated that the "executive team would be taking a pay cut...[and have] frozen recruitment". Those statements may be conflicting.?

The Guardian also reported that MAG's CEO Charlie Cornish is understood to have been given a raise of ￡0.5m in FY20/21, taking his total pay to ￡2.5m. At the same time, MAG was claiming "furlough money". MAG's financial statement note a reimbursement of ￡58.9m related to the CJRS (Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme) in FY20/21.?

What's also interesting is how the leadership team at MAG don't go on the record. Quotes from the airport are anonymised to "Airport Chiefs say" or "The Airport said". A look through the recent press on MAN/MAG shows only one statement or quote that's attributable to a human being, and that was in relation to the MD leaving. ?

Perhaps I have missed the moment when MAG's leaders swooped in to say "I, and I alone will fix this mess", but some might say that the leadership team want to avoid being connected to this car crash. Happier, historical press release quotes (Profit! Carbon Offsetting! New Jobs!) are of course attributed to someone high-up at MAG.

If it's (partly) owned by the public and it serves the public, then it should be accountable to the public

So what's the solution? IMHO it's a Public Inquiry. Employment contracts will mean that it's unlikely that salaries/bonuses can be clawed back from individuals should they be shown to have failed as a director and some board members are of an age where they could leave employment and forget about the "challenges". In this type of situation, there is every opportunity for individuals to avoid accountability.??

Instead, MPs could carefully and methodically pull apart what has happened at MAN. Get the leadership to be front and centre in a series of sessions that will help uncover what went wrong, and who made mistakes.

Equally, require the directors to go into detail on their decision-making processes, enforce disclosure of internal communication and ensure that any failings are put on the public record not just for MAG/MAN as an entity, but for the individuals who made the decisions.?

In short, hold their feet to the fire and keep them there.?