G-FORZ, I fail to see how catchment area is irrelevant. The reason LBA is relatively successful is due to the large population on its doorstep. That is also the reason why the airports you mention can offer cheaper seats, as they have access to large markets so they can be flooded with seats with a better yield. If you believe that other airports haven't tried to 'poach' the incumbents at LBA by offering incentives then you will be mistaken.
Airports can offer all kinds of incentives, but it's up to the public to use the services, or they'll be gone. It's that simple.
Where I completely disagree with Leeds Approach is the constant argument for a new Yorkshire airport, and closure of the others. This simply will not happen, and it's up to the punters to vote with their feet.
I feel LBA will always be ahead of the game in Yorkshire, perceived accessibility issues, and poor weather record considered. It's got to be where the money's at. Access to DSA has vastly improved, but then it is fighting with MAN LBA and EMA for passengers, is it really a viable alternative for the high volume carriers? Those places serve far larger - and generally wealthier - immediate populations...
Wow pug - have you had a bang on the head!? Great post.
Distance catchment population and time/ease catchment population between passenger moving airports are finite figures just like the population of South Yorkshire or the Isle of Wight for example. They are critical important figures when it comes to air travel.
I am not arguing for the closure of airports (just as NCL is not arguing for the closure of MME). Put the 3 airports in a long race and take away political/rival handicap and you will see which one is the most suitable (all aspects) airport. Of course one airport may be involved with another airport?
We need an airport that is making money - not two airports that are paying passengers to fly. Sustainability.