I agree with you Skipness One Echo. Even the European champion in route development of 2014, CPH, has experienced set backs due to treating existing customers with inaccurate demand information. The last came with Emirates not increasing to twice daily CPH-DXB, but opted to start daily OSL-DXB with 77W in stead. CPH's original numbers showed there was passenger demand for a second daily, but didn't distinguish between local demand and transfers from Norway and Sweden.
CPH is very unlike MAN in many ways with being a capital airport and being the main hub for one of the Star Alliance founders, SAS, and with this hub operation one of four passengers are transferring at the airport. But the two airports are very equal to each other too. They have almost the same passenger numbers. Both have a number of terminals, but unlike MAN, CPH has connected them airside. They both try to attrack new Asian carriers with existing carriers basing their current service on passengers to these new destinations. The range of foreign intercontinental carriers too are very equal except for CPH not having Etihad and the two Saudi, but then they have Thai in stead.
MAN has a lot to learn from the successes and errors of CPH, and with the MAG development team having a Nordic flair with Mats Sigurdson (background from ARN) and Kimmo Holopainen (background from Finavia) I hope this knowledge is covered for one of them. I was a fly on the wall (photographer) during an interview for Airways Magazine with the ARN marketing team (that included Mats Sigurdson) in 2007, and they clearly knew of the tricks CPH used - both the good and the bad.