Hi Skipness,
I must confess, I was counting down the minutes wondering when you would weigh in on this particular discussion! But don't take that the wrong way ... your points are as always well presented, and your welcome challenges are as usual deserving of response. In the case of your latest posting, I agree with certain points you make and disagree with others. Let's address some issues which you raise.
Firstly, you refer to "localism". The very epitome of a 'Dirty Word' in the Skipness thesaurus! In the past you have labeled me a 'L-O-C-A-L' (which I presume was not intended as a compliment) and a 'Manchester fanboy'. So let me clear this one up. You appear to have a problem with people making travel decisions which place their own needs first, and which do not pay homage to certain "sacred cow" special interests in London.
In my case, I am entirely happy to support businesses which offer good quality services in my area. That is true whether we refer to tradesmen, retailers, Manchester Airport, or the various airlines (regardless of their domicile) which provide useful connections from here. I do not regard this as disloyal in any way, and the idea that I should shun (for example) THY Turkish Airlines (whose services benefit the L-O-C-A-L British taxpaying business community) in favour of a dire transit of Heathrow with an airline which might operate my connecting flight if they feel like it ... well, the idea is just bizarre.
Do you honestly propose that we should endure the BA MAN-LHR-XXX experience to (allegedly) support employment in Hounslow? Or maybe you believe that we should happily pay a double-dose of APD to fatten the exchequer. Please don't forget that supporting the viability of foreign carriers' MAN services in turn supports the economy in this region. And that's apart from the fact that they are more convenient and reliable than BA from the point of view of a Manchester-area customer.
In fact, I don't care whether the airline I use is "local" to my area or not. The "little Englander" brand of patriotism is not for me. I do care that my chosen carrier provides safe, competitive, reliable and convenient service to the destination offered to the "local" customer. My purchasing choice is based on these considerations. My choice to use MAN is down to its convenient location and ease of use for my journey, nothing more. If I could rely on BA not to cancel my connecting shuttle, they might stand a better chance of winning my business as I have nothing against flying with them per se. But experience has taught me that they are not reliable, and I don't owe BA and LHR a living if they think nothing of letting me down. Please remember too that BA's unreliable service to/from the Manchester area has consequences for the national interest too; crucial missed meetings impede British business in any region and are not appreciated. Our national economy is not enhanced by potential new contracts forfeited due to unreliable travel to and from the regions.
So, in answer to your charge: "If I can't fly from Manchester direct I will use foreign competition", I say yes, absolutely. Perhaps the foreign carrier will actually make an effort to get customers to their destination in time for meetings (unlike some). Perhaps they will thank us for our custom and confirm that it is valued. Perhaps my bookings will help them prosper in their commitment to provide a valuable service which benefits businesses in the Greater Manchester economy. No apologies for that. The people round here as just as British as those supporting London's businesses.
What you perceive as 'localism' on my part is actually pragmatism borne of experience. I have the good fortune to be well-traveled across the world, so I am not blind to the advantages enjoyed by certain other countries, cities and regions. But that is not to say that I am in any way ashamed to hail from the Manchester area; I am entirely at ease with my 'local' roots here and proudly acknowledge them. But I do also acknowledge merit elsewhere; I am not an apologist for bitter narrow-mindedness. As I have pointed out to you before, everybody is local somewhere. Making the most of your local environment is not a shameful concept if exercised in the right spirit (ie. not warped tribal animosities etc.). I hope that you are local to a nice area too, and unapologetically make the most of what it has to offer.
You go on to say that my earlier post reads as a North v South battle. Then you have misinterpreted what I have written. It is a Convenience v Inconvenience battle. It is a Reliability v Unreliability battle. It is a Service v Lack of Service Battle. It is a Good Journey v Bad Journey battle. The geography is entirely incidental. But the suggestion that we should show loyalty to a company which provides unreliable service because it happens to employ people in London is just crazy ... the notion makes no sense to me at all. I accept your point that competition from CDG, FRA, AMS and so on is an issue for the London airports system. But it does not follow that the Manchester public should consent to shun our own air services in support of Ferrovial versus its continental rivals! It is not our problem ... sorry.
I don't wish to spend too long on the banking issue, as this is an aviation forum. But I do wish to challenge one pervasive myth which you again raise. We are constantly told (usually by the banks themselves) that Britain is uniquely blessed to have them based here, keeping our economy solvent with the immense taxes they pay to fund our state programmes. The ugly truth is very different. People quickly forget just how much the TAXPAYER has shelled out to preserve these banks from instant insolvency. People saw the reports of "large number" bailouts to the banks ... and their eyes glazed over. The figures involved were so large that the public fails to begin to grasp the true extent of the catastrophe which has befallen the British economy as a direct consequence of reckless gambling by these self-proclaimed "Masters of the Universe". Our national debt has ballooned, we have vast quantities of toxic financial instruments on the state balance sheet, all thanks to these banks. The sums involved in the bailouts (adjusted for inflation) bear comparison with the financial burden of reparations which buried the Reichmark in the Weimar Republic era. That debacle led directly to the rise to power of a certain "strongman" dictator ... it didn't end well. So don't buy into the hype that we are incredibly lucky to have these genius bankers on our shores. Let some of them decamp to Geneva ... after they repay their inconceivably massive debts to us. Then they can see if the Swiss public will bail out their next reckless bet! As for funding the NHS and education ... well, 10% of the bank bailout money should set them right for all eternity!
Moving on, you raise the issue of BA in the '70's and 80's. "The world has changed Shed," you say. Indeed it has, and I'm not big on nostalgia, but for all BA's shortcomings back then they did successfully get me from MAN to CDG, GVA, FRA, AMS etc. whenever I booked them to do so. If they offered services like that today I might still be a 'loyal' regular ... but it is not to be, so we have all moved on to the most convenient contemporary alternatives. Misty-eyed reminiscences of a bygone BA era have no place in shaping my travel plans for 2011!
Good to exchange ideas with you as always.
SHED.