Can anybody post some evidence that the key UK Intercity rail routes that are potential competitors to air, actually receive any subsidy ? As I understand it, the failure of GNER and then their successor on the East coast, was the high levels of fee that they bid to pay to the government, not the other way round.
When flights to LHR from MME were busiest, it took well over three hours to get from Darlington to King's Cross, and there were about 7 trains per day. At its peak, ECML (the then BR subsidiary) was charging over £300 executive day return at current prices, whilst British Midland were offering Diamond Club flights 5 or 6 times per day at lower prices.
Today, it's well under 3 hours by East Coast, every half hour from very early morning, and even 1st class fares can be had on peak trains at £34 single.
I think it's telling that EZY still pursue NCL-BRS whilst NCL-STN has been dropped. Even the BRS route is only 2 rotations/day during the week, whereas the extended rail alternative dawdle around Yorkshire and the Midlands to the SW remains busy.
And the road alternative these days, compared to when UK domestic flying was at its peak, is IMHO better. From the NE, the improvements in the A1/M1, and subsidiary routes have been substantial, and cars have become a lot more comfortable, mechanically reliable, and more fuel efficient. From the NE, the completion of the A1 upgrade currently underway, will further exacerbate that advantage.
About a decade ago, ONE North East's strategy document suggested that MME's future as a passenger airport should come to an end, and resources and investment concentrated at NCL. Of course, the equivalent of WW3 broke out in the N.E., but one can't help but feel that had this strategy been followed, the region would be better served for Pax air transport than it is now, especially given the history of route failure that the region has created in the interim, because of demand split (and therefore weakened) by having two airports.