Going back to the debate about p2p against major hubs, a couple of points occur in the context of MAN.
I'm not sure the distinction is as clear cut as has been inferred. For example, over the years, my wife and I have enjoyed 4 or 5 day stays in Singapore, Hong Kong and Dubai as part of longer holidays further afield. I'm not sure whether it still applies but some airlines used to offer incentives for stop-overs with reduced hotel rates, excursions etc. Yes, we were using those airports as hubs as they had direct flights from MAN but we were not just transiting the terminals.
Secondly, pre-covid, and before the collapse of TCX and flybe, MAN had slowly been building up the number of connecting passengers at this end of the journey. VS & TCX were reportedly picking up not large but useful numbers of pax transferring at MAN from other domestic and international flights. Nothing remotely like LHR, but seen as sufficiently significant to incorporate improved transfer facilities in the design of the TP for T2. I would have thought that even a few regular transfer passengers onto a long haul flight, particularly if premium pax, could sometimes tip the scales as to whether or not a route is viable.
I don't accept that a direct long haul flight from say MAN or EDI to a hub in the Middle or Far East, somehow means all the jobs and benefits to the UK are lost. Surely, these services bring jobs and wealth to the UK regions they serve, rather more I suspect than a couple of extra shuttles to LHR. I hesitate to mention 'levelling up' but it is a subject which could be relevant in terms of whether non-London airports are encouraged to develop to their maximum potential while accepting it is ultimately airlines that decide where they fly to.
I'm sure Rutan 16 is right. MAN, (and indeed aviation in general), face a huge challenge in winning back routes that were withdrawn and rebuilding passenger numbers and confidence.