Manchester Airport railway station, discussion and ideas

[B&I]

Well that post proves what I'd suspected, you are just trolling the Northerners on this forum. Well done.

No I'm not. I've lived in the midlands and north for 21 years (not being from England, before you accuse me of being some Cockney saboteur). I'm just more realistic about the realities of this country's economy than a lot of people on this forum, even though it is a cardinal crime on here to criticise the paramount wonderfulness of Manchester

 

[Bantamzen]

No I'm not. I've lived in the midlands and north for 21 years (not being from England, before you accuse me of being some Cockney saboteur). I'm just more realistic about the realities of this country's economy than a lot of people on this forum, even though it is a cardinal crime on here to criticise the paramount wonderfulness of Manchester

Let me repeat, its not just about Manchester......

 

[B&I]

Well at least you've helped answer your question about the "basket case" Northern cities. Given the massive difference in per capita spending within the capital's area & without, it should be obvious that London gained a massive advantage over pretty much the rest of the country, especially where commuting there is simply not a option.

TfN's aspirations, and let's be honest this is all they are at this stage, is to have significant investment in the North's transport infrastructure that might help build up struggling economies through attracting new businesses into the region, as well as improve tourism connectivity. However compared to the capital's infrastructure projects, those in the North of England and elsewhere have been piecemeal at best, and at worst have been treat with deliberate neglect from successive governments.

For example, driving new bores through the centre of London was considered a challenge but doable, including threading the needle at Tottenham Court Road. But sticking a pair of electric wires through Standedge is considered apparently so complicated that it may never happen. I loved watching the BBC(?) documentary on the Crossrail project, especially that bit at Tottenham Court Road. Amazing engineering, especially operating past / over live running LU lines. So if that is possible, why the heck is wiring the North TP, or for that matter building P15/16 considered so onerous by some that the proposals can sit at the bottom of an in-tray for years? And frankly it makes the objections to a few services ploughing across Manchester to the airport look patently ridiculous!

I don't want to be that guy, but the more I read about the objections to the airport services & any associated projects, the more I can't help but wonder that they might stem only from them not being London-centric.

No, I agree with you fully about the colossal discrepancy in spending between the south-east and everywhere else, and agree too that it needs to be addressed ASAP. I've already said I do not think what is currently planned goes far enough. I could be here all day listing the improvements which need to be made to the north's rail system.

However, what the north definitely does not need to do is create a mini-London in Manchester to which the rest of the north serves aa a commuter belt (if it's lucky). This is what brings me into conflict with a lot on here, aa the inherent superiority of Manchester is an unchallengeable totem for them.

Similarly, I just don't agree that airport development in general, or giving Manchester Airport a colossal competitive advantage over every other airport outside London, is vital to the economic health of the north (rather than a convenient source of income for the local authorities which own the airport), or something which should be a priority for the railways so long as railway resources remain limited. For a lot of people on here, the approach seems to be 'what's good for Manchester Airports Group is good for the world', their obsession reflected by how the airport continues to dominate the other threads about railways around Manchester, despite the creation of this thread

 

[B&I]

Let me repeat, its not just about Manchester......

It is not even about Manchester (except in a very narrow sense). I have yet to see any evidence at all that anywhere other than Manchester Airport and its owners benefit from its growth. Repetition of mantras is not evidence

 

[Bantamzen]

No, I agree with you fully about the colossal discrepancy in spending between the south-east and everywhere else, and agree too that it needs to be addressed ASAP. I've already said I do not think what is currently planned goes far enough. I could be here all day listing the improvements which need to be made to the north's rail system.

However, what the north definitely does not need to do is create a mini-London in Manchester to which the rest of the north serves aa a commuter belt (if it's lucky). This is what brings me into conflict with a lot on here, aa the inherent superiority of Manchester is an unchallengeable totem for them.

Similarly, I just don't agree that airport development in general, or giving Manchester Airport a colossal competitive advantage over every other airport outside London, is vital to the economic health of the north (rather than a convenient source of income for the local authorities which own the airport), or something which should be a priority for the railways so long as railway resources remain limited. For a lot of people on here, the approach seems to be 'what's good for Manchester Airports Group is good for the world', their obsession reflected by how the airport continues to dominate the other threads about railways around Manchester, despite the creation of this thread

Its not about creating a 'Mini-London', quite the opposite in fact. We've all seen how London has sucked in business & their employees over the decades, and how that growth has put ever increasing pressure on housing, transport & even cost of living. So we don't need another Metropolis, but instead better connectivity between cities & towns in the North, and to encourage new business (more on that in a second) into the region.

In the post-Brexit world, the UK isn't going to be able to rely on the financial sector forever for so much of it's GDP. We will (in my opinion at least) need to once again become innovators, designers, engineers & builders. But we can't do all of that in London, we need to spread out the economic aspirations to all the regions. To achieve that we have to do a number of things, including convincing would-be investors from around the world that the North is capable of hosting the kind of business we might want in future. And part of that is having a modern, and well connected infrastructure (and this doesn't just include the rails by the way) that can make the UK competitive in a very competitive world market.

So having Manchester airport connected to all the areas it serves is some small part in a much bigger picture. Like I said, its an aspiration at this stage, much work is needed in so many areas. But its either that or continue to rely on the financial sector for most of our GDP in an ever more fickle sector, cramming in more & more people into the capital and surrounding area, spending ever greater amounts of money boring more tunnels in the vain hope of keeping all this going whilst the rest of the country slowly rots away.

It is not even about Manchester (except in a very narrow sense). I have yet to see any evidence at all that anywhere other than Manchester Airport and its owners benefit from its growth. Repetition of mantras is not evidence

It doesn't take much digging to start to see the benefits:

A wide range of activity is now live across target markets, USA, Australia/New Zealand, Netherlands, Germany and China. Examples include a consumer campaign in partnership with Hainan Airlines featuring radio adverts and outdoor highlighting destinations in the North of England accessible thanks to the new Beijing-Manchester flights.

https://www.visitbritain.org/northern-tourism-growth-fund

Its a starter for ten, having direct links to countries that are growing economically & have populations becoming more mobile can offer great benefits. I'm not going to trawl around any further because to be honest it should be obvious that greater connectivity can, and does lead to economic growth through business, tourism etc. And frankly to achieve what are really quite modest aspirations compared to the South East could be realised with a fraction of the cost of London's plans, and bring considerable benefits to more people overall.

 

[Killingworth]

London is a massive economic magnet. Manchester and Birmingham are large economic magnets. Other cities have more local magnetism. The relative pull of each varies over time. Now it's the airport sucking life from a wider area. Leeds has seen a similar effect to the east, but their airport is not in the same league. Newcastle is too far away to be the Northern hub, Sheffield too far south.

Like it or not, it was called the Manchester hub before it seemed more saleable as the Northern hub, and that is the reality.

We can, and should, try to spread economic activity away from the South East but so too we should spread northern prosperity away from Manchester.

That's challenging. Almost every example of improved communications I can think of drew activity away from an extremity to the centre. I'm sure there must be examples of the reverse effect - possibly how the Manchester Ship Canal drew trade from Liverpool? History is repeating itself!

 

[underbank]

However, what the north definitely does not need to do is create a mini-London in Manchester to which the rest of the north serves aa a commuter belt (if it's lucky). This is what brings me into conflict with a lot on here, aa the inherent superiority of Manchester is an unchallengeable totem for them.

Have to agree with that. There are large parts of "The North" which are too far away from Manchester to benefit from it's growth unless public transport is massively improved outside the Liverpool/Manchester/Leeds corridor. North Lancashire & Cumbria in particular still have poor transport links. There are still no trains early enough to get to Manchester Airport in time for early morning departures. No fast trains to get commuters realistically to Leeds/Manchester in time for the start of the working day, from say the Furness line. By concentrating on Manchester, it just makes things worse. Cumbria and some northern towns/cities will continue to decline with workers having to move to be closer to centralised workplaces, leaving a vacuum behind meaning more amenities lost, less economic activity, etc. Jobs need to be spread out more, thus reducing the need for continual public transport improvement into city centres. If we're not careful, Manchester will become a mini London and will suffer the same problems and costs.

 

[B&I]

Its not about creating a 'Mini-London', quite the opposite in fact. We've all seen how London has sucked in business & their employees over the decades, and how that growth has put ever increasing pressure on housing, transport & even cost of living. So we don't need another Metropolis, but instead better connectivity between cities & towns in the North, and to encourage new business (more on that in a second) into the region.

In the post-Brexit world, the UK isn't going to be able to rely on the financial sector forever for so much of it's GDP. We will (in my opinion at least) need to once again become innovators, designers, engineers & builders. But we can't do all of that in London, we need to spread out the economic aspirations to all the regions. To achieve that we have to do a number of things, including convincing would-be investors from around the world that the North is capable of hosting the kind of business we might want in future. And part of that is having a modern, and well connected infrastructure (and this doesn't just include the rails by the way) that can make the UK competitive in a very competitive world market.

So having Manchester airport connected to all the areas it serves is some small part in a much bigger picture. Like I said, its an aspiration at this stage, much work is needed in so many areas. But its either that or continue to rely on the financial sector for most of our GDP in an ever more fickle sector, cramming in more & more people into the capital and surrounding area, spending ever greater amounts of money boring more tunnels in the vain hope of keeping all this going whilst the rest of the country slowly rots away.



It doesn't take much digging to start to see the benefits:



https://www.visitbritain.org/northern-tourism-growth-fund

Its a starter for ten, having direct links to countries that are growing economically & have populations becoming more mobile can offer great benefits. I'm not going to trawl around any further because to be honest it should be obvious that greater connectivity can, and does lead to economic growth through business, tourism etc. And frankly to achieve what are really quite modest aspirations compared to the South East could be realised with a fraction of the cost of London's plans, and bring considerable benefits to more people overall.

I agree with all you say about re-balancing the economy, both geographically and in terms of.the activities involved, and the importance of better connectivity. Apart from anything else, we need to shift the ridiculous number of commuters by private car off tje north's creaking road aystem.

However, and it's a big however, if you look at this solely in twrma of transport policy, all you are going to do is reinforce existing development patterns. I appreciate that issuses such as macroeconomic and regional.development policy lie outside the remit of a rail discussion forum.

We are drifting into a situation where, instead of creating a web if links between a series of largeish conurbations, we are focusing on a single airport as the focus of the region's transport links, whilst alao pouring vast amounts into making sure a select handful.of northern cities are better connected to.London via HS2 than they are to.each other. In addition, as even the largest northern cities lack comprehensive local rail or tram networks, and are excessively dependent on bus services (which are generally in decline, thanks to government policy) what little investment is going on transport in the north is going to waste because it focuses on connecting a handful.of city centres, while doing nothinf about getting people from where they actually live so they can use those services in the first place. This is not going to.rebalance anything.

Back to Manchester Airport. I am still waiting for a single.solitary piece of evidence that its growth has economically benefitted anyone other than its owners. You.seem to think it's self-evident that well-connected.airports attract inward investment. I'm afraid that I don't see many signs of inward investment to the north's stagnant economy (many new jobs seem to be 'northshoring' of backroom functions by British banks etc, where there hasn't simply.been consolidation of existing jobs at regional.bases)

 

[B&I]

London is a massive economic magnet. Manchester and Birmingham are large economic magnets. Other cities have more local magnetism. The relative pull of each varies over time. Now it's the airport sucking life from a wider area. Leeds has seen a similar effect to the east, but their airport is not in the same league. Newcastle is too far away to be the Northern hub, Sheffield too far south.

Like it or not, it was called the Manchester hub before it seemed more saleable as the Northern hub, and that is the reality.

We can, and should, try to spread economic activity away from the South East but so too we should spread northern prosperity away from Manchester.

That's challenging. Almost every example of improved communications I can think of drew activity away from an extremity to the centre. I'm sure there must be examples of the reverse effect - possibly how the Manchester Ship Canal drew trade from Liverpool? History is repeating itself!

The Ship Canal was Manchester's attempt to draw maritime trade away from Liverpool !

 

[Scouseinmanc]

Now I've heard it all - what a stupid comment

 

[Bantamzen]

I agree with all you say about re-balancing the economy, both geographically and in terms of.the activities involved, and the importance of better connectivity. Apart from anything else, we need to shift the ridiculous number of commuters by private car off tje north's creaking road aystem.

However, and it's a big however, if you look at this solely in twrma of transport policy, all you are going to do is reinforce existing development patterns. I appreciate that issuses such as macroeconomic and regional.development policy lie outside the remit of a rail discussion forum.

We are drifting into a situation where, instead of creating a web if links between a series of largeish conurbations, we are focusing on a single airport as the focus of the region's transport links, whilst alao pouring vast amounts into making sure a select handful.of northern cities are better connected to.London via HS2 than they are to.each other. In addition, as even the largest northern cities lack comprehensive local rail or tram networks, and are excessively dependent on bus services (which are generally in decline, thanks to government policy) what little investment is going on transport in the north is going to waste because it focuses on connecting a handful.of city centres, while doing nothinf about getting people from where they actually live so they can use those services in the first place. This is not going to.rebalance anything.

Back to Manchester Airport. I am still waiting for a single.solitary piece of evidence that its growth has economically benefitted anyone other than its owners. You.seem to think it's self-evident that well-connected.airports attract inward investment. I'm afraid that I don't see many signs of inward investment to the north's stagnant economy (many new jobs seem to be 'northshoring' of backroom functions by British banks etc, where there hasn't simply.been consolidation of existing jobs at regional.bases)

I don't disagree with on the issue of the declining investment at the local transport levels, I've seen this all too well evidenced in the area I live in. But I do disagree on the benefits of Manchester airport's current, and more importantly planned growth on the wider area. The evidence that opening tourism markets, with long haul tourists landing there instead of London then being enticed away from the capital are there for all to see. But where it maybe does lack is in business, as Manchester Airport is still in the process of growing, and so the effects are yet to be seen fully. Their stated aimed is to handle more long haul flights, moving some holiday & short haul flights to other regional airports.

And that means more potential for current & potential new businesses to attract investment from overseas into the region because instead of said investors having to fly to London, go into London, make potentially multiple changes before getting to a meeting in a Northern city. Indeed such is the faff of London based airports that many have the meetings in London, then often take office space there and eventually some if not all operations there so they don't have the faff. So having London as the principal arrival point is not as good as having multiple arrival points for areas like the North of England.

Anyway, we are in danger of straying too far off topic here. Its an interesting and thought provoking debate without doubt, I just don't want to cause too much work for the mods so I think we'll have to agree to disagree?

 

[B&I]

Now I've heard it all - what a stupid comment

Was that directed at me ? If so, do you care to explain ?

 

[B&I]

I don't disagree with on the issue of the declining investment at the local transport levels, I've seen this all too well evidenced in the area I live in. But I do disagree on the benefits of Manchester airport's current, and more importantly planned growth on the wider area. The evidence that opening tourism markets, with long haul tourists landing there instead of London then being enticed away from the capital are there for all to see. But where it maybe does lack is in business, as Manchester Airport is still in the process of growing, and so the effects are yet to be seen fully. Their stated aimed is to handle more long haul flights, moving some holiday & short haul flights to other regional airports.

And that means more potential for current & potential new businesses to attract investment from overseas into the region because instead of said investors having to fly to London, go into London, make potentially multiple changes before getting to a meeting in a Northern city. Indeed such is the faff of London based airports that many have the meetings in London, then often take office space there and eventually some if not all operations there so they don't have the faff. So having London as the principal arrival point is not as good as having multiple arrival points for areas like the North of England.

Anyway, we are in danger of straying too far off topic here. Its an interesting and thought provoking debate without doubt, I just don't want to cause too much work for the mods so I think we'll have to agree to disagree?

I'm afraid so. It's difficult to have any meaningful debate about railway issues affecting Manchester Airport without examining whether the airport actually justifies the importance attached to it by national level economic and transport planning, but I suspect we've said all that can be said in support of our respective positions

 

[pemma]

Their stated aimed is to handle more long haul flights, moving some holiday & short haul flights to other regional airports.

They are also trying to remove the restriction they have on using runway 2 overnight to allow more flights. Currently it can't be used overnight due to excessive noise pollution over residential areas but an exception is allowed if 'essential maintenance' is planned on runway 1, a right many feel they have been abusing. This means there's an overnight period where there are no departures and arrivals are limited. If they do get the restriction lifted (which would be very controversial) it'll mean a lot of flight departures at anti-social hours. I know I'm not alone in saying that if the choice was a 3am flight from the closest airport (Manchester) or a midday flight from an airport a bit further away (Liverpool), I'd chose the latter, even if a 24/7 public transport service is introduced to Manchester Airport.

 

[Scouseinmanc]

Not really tbh...
I would suggest you read why the Ship Canal was built (not for the reason you stated).
There's a lengthy Wikipedia article on it.

 

[frodshamfella]

Gdansk, Liepzig, Vienna, Helsinki and Krakow are fantastic.
Rzeszow, Warsaw Modlin and Conception are functional but fine.
Munich, Frankfurt, Schipol, Paris CDG, Birmingham, East Midlands, Warsaw Chopin and Liverpool are all pretty good.
Wasn't particularly a fan of Atlanta or Detroit. Santiago, Sydney, Singapore and Dubai were fine. Manchester, Heathrow, Stansted, Luton, Setif and Constantine are all various levels of dreadful.

I should add for completeness, Pisa and Paris Beauvais are calamitous, Napoli slightly less so.

Inverness London City and Porto pretty good too

 

[Greybeard33]

We can, and should, try to spread economic activity away from the South East but so too we should spread northern prosperity away from Manchester.

That's challenging. Almost every example of improved communications I can think of drew activity away from an extremity to the centre. I'm sure there must be examples of the reverse effect - possibly how the Manchester Ship Canal drew trade from Liverpool? History is repeating itself!

And the Manchester Ship Canal now lies semi-derelict, a monument to the futility of the 19th century rivalry between Manchester and Liverpool that ultimately contributed to the economic decline of both.

Liverpool and Manchester are both still great cities, and both are now reviving, but they need each other. Economics is not a zero sum game. If the cities of the North work together, the whole can be much greater than the sum of the parts. But that requires improved transport links, both internally and with the wider world. And each city needs to build on its strengths, e.g. the Port of Liverpool and Manchester Airport.

As an incomer to the North, it saddens me that many here still cling to outdated beggar my neighbour attitudes. We cannot expect the Central Government to stump up more investment for the North's rail network if we cannot agree amongst ourselves what is needed.

 

[B&I]

Not really tbh...
I would suggest you read why the Ship Canal was built (not for the reason you stated).
There's a lengthy Wikipedia article on it.

From the Wikipedia article on the Ship Canal:

"Along with deteriorating economic conditions in the 1870s[11] and the start of a period known as the Long Depression, the dues charged by the Port of Liverpool and the railway charges from there to Manchester were perceived to be excessive by Manchester's business community; it was often cheaper to import goods from Hull, on the opposite side of the country, than it was from Liverpool.[12] A ship canal was proposed as a way to reduce carriage charges, avoid payment of dock and town dues at Liverpool, and bypass the Liverpool to Manchester railways by giving Manchester direct access to the sea for its imports and its exports of manufactured goods."

Sounds pretty like what I said.

 

[B&I]

And the Manchester Ship Canal now lies semi-derelict, a monument to the futility of the 19th century rivalry between Manchester and Liverpool that ultimately contributed to the economic decline of both.

Liverpool and Manchester are both still great cities, and both are now reviving, but they need each other. Economics is not a zero sum game. If the cities of the North work together, the whole can be much greater than the sum of the parts. But that requires improved transport links, both internally and with the wider world. And each city needs to build on its strengths, e.g. the Port of Liverpool and Manchester Airport.

As an incomer to the North, it saddens me that many here still cling to outdated beggar my neighbour attitudes. We cannot expect the Central Government to stump up more investment for the North's rail network if we cannot agree amongst ourselves what is needed.

There is a danger of taking too reductionist an attitude. The north is not a large metropolitan area, like London, but a series of distinct conurbations. If you start pretending each has only a limited part to play in the whole, you end up with something considerably less than the sum of its parts. Why, for example, must airport development be concentrated at Manchester, to the expense of the north's 3 other major airports ?

The problem in this country is out hypercentralised mentality. We cannot conceive of a series of independent but interacting entities, as opposed to a domineering centre and subservient satelites. Most other countries don't behave the way we do.

 

[edwin_m]

There is a danger of taking too reductionist an attitude. The north is not a large metropolitan area, like London, but a series of distinct conurbations. If you start pretending each has only a limited part to play in the whole, you end up with something considerably less than the sum of its parts. Why, for example, must airport development be concentrated at Manchester, to the expense of the north's 3 other major airports ?

The problem in this country is out hypercentralised mentality. We cannot conceive of a series of independent but interacting entities, as opposed to a domineering centre and subservient satelites. Most other countries don't behave the way we do.

That is indeed the principle behind getting better services between the cities of the North. But why shouldn't one of the independent but interacting entities be Manchester Airport, aiming to bring the benefits of a hub airport to the region?

 

[Agent_Squash]

There is a danger of taking too reductionist an attitude. The north is not a large metropolitan area, like London, but a series of distinct conurbations. If you start pretending each has only a limited part to play in the whole, you end up with something considerably less than the sum of its parts. Why, for example, must airport development be concentrated at Manchester, to the expense of the north's 3 other major airports ?

The problem in this country is out hypercentralised mentality. We cannot conceive of a series of independent but interacting entities, as opposed to a domineering centre and subservient satelites. Most other countries don't behave the way we do.

I’m sorry, but how are Leeds, Liverpool and (maybe) Newcastle major airports in comparison to Manchester? None of them have the capacity that Manchester offers, nor the capabilities (LBA/LPL can’t take anything larger than a 767, a 777 at a push)

 

[Altfish]

Manchester has c 28m passengers
Liverpool has c 5m
Leeds/Bradford has c 4m
Newcastle c 5m

So Manchester is a lot larger by a factor of over 5

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is indeed the principle behind getting better services between the cities of the North. But why shouldn't one of the independent but interacting entities be Manchester Airport, aiming to bring the benefits of a hub airport to the region?

Does the lack of a train service outside London make Heathrow not a hub airport?

 

[sheff1]

Newcastle is too far away to be the Northern hub, Sheffield too far south.

Interesting assertion. Sheffield city is north of Manchester Airport (and only slightly further south than the city). Sheffield Doncaster airport is further north again.

 

[js1000]

Back to Manchester Airport. I am still waiting for a single.solitary piece of evidence that its growth has economically benefitted anyone other than its owners. You.seem to think it's self-evident that well-connected.airports attract inward investment. I'm afraid that I don't see many signs of inward investment to the north's stagnant economy (many new jobs seem to be 'northshoring' of backroom functions by British banks etc, where there hasn't simply.been consolidation of existing jobs at regional.bases)

70% of airports make a loss due to the inherent costs involved. Security staff, fire safety, runway and apron maintenance, floor area required etc. When people say I wish other regional airports could compete with the London airports + Manchester I scratch my head. Generally, the bigger an airport is the more sustainable they are.

Manchester is the only airport in the north to have a sizable network of long-haul routes - in part due to its passenger numbers. Everyone else in the North or Midlands would have to connect via London which would cost more.

The problem Manchester Airport has from rail perspective is every councillor/MP in the north wants a direct train to it with the perceived economic advantage/convenience it brings. The owners of Manchester Airport may benefit from additional services - equally the owners through TfGM (10 councils of Greater Manchester) are having to sacrifice some of the commuter stations on the Styal Line into Manchester which is not ideal for reducing road congestion in the city. It's a double edged sword.

 

[Killingworth]

]

Interesting assertion. Sheffield city is north of Manchester Airport (and only slightly further south than the city). Sheffield Doncaster airport is further north again.

As one who was born in a city with an airport served by frequent metro trains I can safely say it is too far north to be the northern hub.

As a resident of a city that is too far north to be the Midlands hub I can't help noticing how long it takes to get to any other major northern city. But yes, there are 2 tph to York and Newcastle. Leeds can be 50 (XC) or 60 (Northern) minutes away, or take even longer on some stopping routes. 3 tph to Manchester, but even the 2 fast ones are a long way short of inter-city fast, and unreliable. There are through trains to Hull and Huddersfield, neither frequent or fast for long.

If Manchester dropped the baton Leeds would be a better rail hub than anywhere else in the north. More routes lead there, both road (M1, M62 etc) and rail and there are many smaller cities and towns nearby, very many connected by rail and tram. I know there's criticism of TPE for their current services, but they do take folks from a wide area around the north. The Manchester conurbation employs a lot of people in rail and air relevant work.

The rivalries in the north may go Liverpool/ Manchester, Sheffield/Leeds/Bradford, Newcastle/Sunderland. However only 2 tracks into or out of Sheffield makes late running trains a big headache

 

[edwin_m]

Does the lack of a train service outside London make Heathrow not a hub airport?

When considering the destinations of inward visitors as well as the origins of outbound travellers, the land origins/destinations of Heathrow's passengers will be highly concentrated in central London. So a single train service will result in a good proportion of passengers using it. Nvertheless this is considered not to be good enough efforts are being made to provide train service to other destinations in the south-east. Manchester's catchment is much more dispersed so it needs service to a wide range of places to achieve the same.

 

[B&I]

That is indeed the principle behind getting better services between the cities of the North. But why shouldn't one of the independent but interacting entities be Manchester Airport, aiming to bring the benefits of a hub airport to the region?

Because the benefits of a hub airport are being wildly overstated, and because it is being boosted at the expense of everything else - competing northern airports, a functioning long distance railway network etc

 

[B&I]

I’m sorry, but how are Leeds, Liverpool and (maybe) Newcastle major airports in comparison to Manchester? None of them have the capacity that Manchester offers, nor the capabilities (LBA/LPL can’t take anything larger than a 767, a 777 at a push)

Because the vast majority of Manchester services use smaller aircraft which don't require longer runways. Because other airports can host long-distance flights without accommodating the largest aircraft (Liverpool has had trans-Atlantic flights, Leeds-Bradford has flights to the subcontinent, and Newcastle has flights to the Middle East). And because any advantage Manchester enjoys in infrastructure arises from quirks in history, in particular the planning enquiries which almost simultaneously approved a second runway at Manchester wbipe kibboshing expansion at Liverpool.

 

[B&I]

70% of airports make a loss due to the inherent costs involved. Security staff, fire safety, runway and apron maintenance, floor area required etc. When people say I wish other regional airports could compete with the London airports + Manchester I scratch my head. Generally, the bigger an airport is the more sustainable they are.

Manchester is the only airport in the north to have a sizable network of long-haul routes - in part due to its passenger numbers. Everyone else in the North or Midlands would have to connect via London which would cost more.

The problem Manchester Airport has from rail perspective is every councillor/MP in the north wants a direct train to it with the perceived economic advantage/convenience it brings. The owners of Manchester Airport may benefit from additional services - equally the owners through TfGM (10 councils of Greater Manchester) are having to sacrifice some of the commuter stations on the Styal Line into Manchester which is not ideal for reducing road congestion in the city. It's a double edged sword.

It's an easy choice to make. Boost an airport in which you have a direct financial interest, ot promote local heavy rail services on one line into your city centre when you don't give a toss about local heavy rail generally ? Even the people of Manchester itself don't really benefit from the way the airport is promoted above all other competing interests, which makes the obsessive, cultish devotion some display towards it even harder to understand