I don't think MAN's distance has that much to do with it. In continental
Europe, there are many hubs and potential hubs close to each other; why
did AMS work as a hub and BRU didn't? It's largely because the Dutch saw
the opportunity and built an airport which could do it; Sabena didn't,
but it could have. Vision and regulatory freedom have a great impact on
the ability of an airport to become a hub; SIN is a very successful
Asian hub, but without Singapore's liberal approach to bilaterals, it
probably would not have been as successful as it is. Geography and a
first class airport helped, but regulatory issues are even more
important.
To a certain extent, I agree with you, in that DUB - through no fault of
its own - missed the boat. EI, at one time served more UK airports from
DUB than BA did from LHR and could have built a decent hub at DUB for
secondary UK airports; many, like BHX, BRS, LBA etc, either didn't have
access to LHR (too close) or a connection via LHR would have been a
longer journey. DUB would have been more attractive than MAN or LHR (one
terminal), but again, the obstacle? Not the competition, not other
govts, but our own - with friends like these ...
Another part of the tragedy is that when SNN had to rely on its own wit
and innovation, it was well able to do so - the duty free concept, the
free zone and various other innovations under the leadership of Brendan
O'Regan and others, BUT with the comfort of govt protection and a lobby
which had the govt wrapped around its finger, where was the need or the
incentive to do this? Thankfully, now, with FR, they're able to do this,
but they could have been made to do so a long time back.