Would you rather have the airport embroiled in a juicy ugly lawsuit at its busiest time of the year? Sorry, but this guy was simply wrong. If he really felt the Christmas tree was a religious symbol (and it's actually not any longer, certainly not in the sense that a menorah is) or if he wanted a menorah in the airport, he could have approached them months in advance with the request. This was an attempt to pressure them with a sudden request and the threat of a lawsuit, and it simply didn't work out the way he expected.
The Lubavitchers have been successful here in Florida using just such techniques to pressure towns into putting up menorahs, even claiming that the town Santa Claus (which it is laughable to consider a "religious symbol," regardless of its origins) means that they get "equal time" for their menorah. I think the airport was acting reasonably. There have been judicial decisions that have permitted trees and other displays because they are cultural rather than religious, but who has time to get into that issue right now when the holiday season is in full swing?
What lawsuit?
The threatened lawsuit would have only kicked in if the director didn't allow Chabad to put up a menorah.
Or are you saying that placing Jewish religious icons in a public place should be verboten, and only Christian ones allowed?
Imagine what would have happened if the director had seen the demand, shrugged, and said, "Okay, go ahead and put up a menorah."
A lawsuit? The removal of the Christmas trees? Hmmmm, no, none of that would have happened.
But then, we'd have a menorah in the Seattle airport.
And the director... and those that support his decision... seem to have a problem with that.