However I feel that to do that well we must get the infrastructure right which at present it isn't for an airport of its size.
MAN takes lots of flak on here for its alleged poor infrastructure planning. But just a moment ... MAN is the one and only UK airport of size which had the foresight and vision to build an additional full-length runway when the going was good. The result is that MAN does not have a runway capacity problem today, and slot capacity looks ample for the foreseeable future. That is an enviable position to be in. Some very good management decisions led up to that. If we're doling out criticism for the terminals then it is only fair to give full credit for the runway initiative. Terminal upgrades are far, far easier to plan and implement than a new runway.
The TP is to be welcomed but it falls short of what ideally is needed.
Ah, but does it? You haven't seen the final version of the TP. Actually, neither have I. For good reason. Many of the designers have only just been awarded contracts for their roles. What we have seen so far are outline plans which will evolve dramatically between now and final completion.
STN was a distraction for MAG and to the detriment of MAN and may continue to be so because of the "London" tag
I have sympathy with this point of view and confess to being unenthusiastic when news of the acquisition was first announced. However, that is water under the bridge and STN is now an integral part of the group. One thing that I must say is that in the light of recent estimates of the cost of constructing new runways at LHR/LGW, it is clear that MAG picked up STN for peanuts by comparison. As an asset, STN must now be valued multiples higher than the sum initially paid by MAG. That gives an enviable level of financial security to the group.
I agree that STN can sometimes appear to be a management distraction from MAN. Some executives split their time between the sites. There are some conflicts of interest too as demonstrated by the recent situation which has seen a major cargo airline choosing between two airports represented by the same marketing executive. And he is based at STN. Having said that, I don't believe that MAG will neglect MAN in favour of STN. They see the numbers, they speak with the airlines, they know the potential of (by far) the largest airport in the North. MAN has a client-base which is far more varied and lucrative than that at a Ryanair-dominated no-frills gateway which happens to be close to London. I'm not playing down STN ... it is a major airport with a bright future. But the same is true of MAN as well and MAG understands that. As for the Australians, rest assured that Manchester (as a city) enjoys very high recognition dunnunda. If MAN continues to yield healthy profits and dividends they'll be happy with their investment decision.
The TP is conflicting on the number of extra stands. The Planning application says only 1 extra
Yes, but that is the initial planning application to get the project underway. As alluded to earlier, much of the TP hasn't been designed yet. There is alot more to follow between now and ten years hence. I had the opportunity to ask one of the senior executives involved in the project about this. Will the TP provide sufficient capacity to accommodate projected growth? "Of course. It wouldn't be worth our while undertaking this otherwise!"