Air Anglia was formed in 1970. I am certainly not saying Manchester Airport has been squeaky clean but it is a matter of record going back to the early 1950s that it faced obstacles at almost every turn. Unlike Heathrow, which has lost money in the past and now pays corporate and private shareholders from its profits, it returned profits for four decades into local authority coffers and continues to do so. It is a major income generator for the region, apart from the Group's own profits, a major direct and indirect employer and a key gateway serving the UK's third most visited city. Other regional airports have their own very valid reasons for existing and being allowed to develop.
According to Demographia, the world census of urban conurbation's 2016 figures, London has 10.35 million people in an area of 671 sq miles. With an area of 243 sq miles the population of Greater Manchester is 2.66 million. If the square mileage around Manchester is increased to 670 the population rises to 7.25 million and this does not include any part of the West Midlands south of Stoke.
Greater Manchester's 243 square miles has the 178th largest population of any urban area in the world, equal to Tampa/St Petersburg in the USA, according to Demographia. The reaction of the citizens of Tampa would be interesting to observe if it was suggested that it would be best served by Miami, which is only 40-45 minutes aircraft time away gate to gate.
If London needs a third runway at LHR or a second at Gatwick, then so be it, but not at the expense of any other part of the country and the finance should be generated by local means. Manchester financed the £172 million for its second runway from retained profits.
However with a Londoncentric press headlining nonsense such as this:
The UK hasn't had a new runway in 60 years - that could soon change - Telegraph when reporting on the story, the chances are every chance to twist the story in favour of boosting Heathrow will be taken.