It is not about holding EMA back it is about giving another airport a helping hand.
Errmm you mean the Number One airport outside London? I didn't realise that Monarch moved all the aircraft they based at EMA and shunted them off to MAN instead. Oh. My mistake, Monarch PULLED 3 aircraft from MAN. Wouldn't you say that has had a dramatic effect there? The idea that passenger numbers are increasing at 3 times the increase in seat capacity reflects well on MAN.
The full aircraft on SV and CX equate to something like 1200 passengers being carried on 4 flights. You'd be hard pressed to get 3 return flights each operating 100% loads on each and every flight for low-cost carriers and even then it's still less than the SV/CX combine.
Besides, you seem to have forgotten that Manchester Airport Group is not the sole preserve of the Greater Manchester councils. They are also answerable to the Australians. I hardly think they would be appreciative of getting an airport to running at a loss to "bolster" the already very profitable performance of the main airport in the group.
Most of the new freight flts seem to being sent by MAG to STN as well ?
Which freight flights were slated to come into MAN or EMA but ended up at STN instead? I'm struggling to think of them.