1. There is a world of difference between 17 flights a year full of tourists and 4 flights a week in a mixed mode.
2. This is not 'Hainan' per se, it's a tour operator that has chartered the cheapest available airline, the same as last year. In fact if your BHX glass is half empty you could say China Southern dipped their toes in the water last year and aren't coming back. The thing is, that's nonsense as they were no more doing that than Hainan are doing this year.
3. Don't Austrian Airlines fly to both BHX and MAN on ski charters (to ski type places) - that's no more likely to be a toe in the water for scheduled flights as Hainan. The two things are entirely separate.
Can't disagree with any of those three points -
however nothing is straightforward when dealing with China, and the hard (diplomatic as much as anything else) work that will have been put in by BHX marketing, the tourist boards and the UK trade department will potentially give BHX a head start in the race for direct China connections from outside London.
It is undeniable that something has gone amiss with the Hainan MAN service, otherwise it would be up and running this summer. Perhaps they have done their sums and decided that the demand for 4 x weekly schedules just isn't there yet - in terms of potential yield - to any UK airport outside London and they are reviewing their strategy? Perhaps the figures show that it's a close run thing in terms of demand, between MAN and BHX, for the profitable front end business, or for cargo?
Time alone will tell, but one thing that Manchester, and it's proponents, need to realise is that the airport doesn't have a God given right to every new long haul route to England, outside of London.