As Going Loco points out, a contradiction could be read into MAN's latest advertising campaign. I read it as a sensible statement put with a touch of humour. We're seeing attrition now, as the always-suspect economics of mass low cost air travel are being questioned, even by one of the main protagonists - see the O'Leary thread elsewhere. Other than to traditional popular holiday destinations and one or two continental hubs, the North of England cannot sustain multiple departure points, the market is too small. Some centralisation is inevitable if direct links from this region to important worldwide destinations are to be maintained. If the northern market is fragmented, Heathrow or Amsterdam will be the main beneficiaries. The 1978 Airports White Paper had it about right, MAN is the gateway airport for northern England, just as Liverpool and Hull are the gateway sea ports. MAN will never rival Heathrow but can sustain direct services to key hubs worldwide if it can be allowed to attain critical mass. The 2003 White Paper which suggested that all UK airports can grow is flawed, as was most economic thinking at that time. MAN is still a publicly owned airport and is run for the public benefit. It still has amongst its stated aims to be run for the economic and social benefit of the region. Perhaps this public ownership should be wider-spread beyond just the immediate local authorities? That region could be the whole of the north of England. The surface links to MAN are already good, and they can get better. The North needs to act together and not like the feuding cities of medieval Italy. Some cities or regions are better placed to act in a certain capacity for the benefit of the whole of northern England. Each has a strength to offer. The privatisation of most airports has made such joined up thinking difficult, but not all may survive in their current form.