EastMids ... So many misapprehensions there! Where do I begin!
You can lay all the concrete and erect all the steel you like (funded in whatever way you want) but if the airlines don't want to come then the additional facilities aren't going to get used.
Technically correct. However, with around 70 carriers serving MAN at the present time that isn't an issue in this case. Also, most growth in throughput at MAN is attributable to increased services operated by incumbent based carriers rather than to 'new tails'. Note also that the T2 TP (GBP850M redevelopment of T2) is about replacing obsolete infrastructure with new state-of-the-art infrastructure. It doesn't require further traffic growth to justify its construction, although that would of course be very welcome.
even now the number of aircraft movements are barely more than 2/3rds of what they were back then.
This doesn't tell the whole story. MAN used to have a thriving GA scene which would see around 100 movements by light singles such as PA28's and PA38's on a nice day. Also, many schedules in the past were operated by small types such as the Jetstream and the E145. And four different London Airports enjoyed upto 50 departures per day from MAN ... we are now down to 8 or 9 per day to LHR only. Meanwhile, business has shifted towards the LCC's in particular with average passengers per movement having soared in consequence. Pressure on the terminals has grown sharply.
Passenger and movement capacity hasn't been a limiting factor at MAN for almost ten years now
Hmmm ... You don't know MAN very well, do you? Terminal 3 has been bursting at the seams for some time now. It is in desperate need of expansion. Ryanair has indicated in the past that they hoped to be at 10 MAN-based B738's well before now. This hasn't been possible because their ops require contact stands and T3 hasn't got sufficient available. The Ryanair fleet is stuck at 8 for now, and T3's quick runway access means they won't consider switching terminals. Also, Vueling, another T3 operator, had allegedly considered adding a two aircraft base at MAN a year ago. This didn't happen at that time. So T3 limitations
have been and remain a limiting factor to capacity at MAN for a while now.
Meanwhile, MAN's throughput is unusually dependent on based fleets which require overnight stand space at the airport. Whilst acknowledging that some long-haul aircraft are away flying at night, most of the short-haul types overnight at the airport. And many of the long-hauls (TCX, TOM etc.) arrive back before the based fleet has departed on first rotation. Current based aircraft are: EXS 18; TOM 14; TCX 13; EZY 11; RYR 8; MON 8; BEE 8;VIR 4; LLC 2; FDX/ABR 2; CFG 1. A further 8 aircraft operating for European flag carriers etc. also night-stop at MAN. Acknowledgment to 'MKY661' for providing that information. The takeaway from this is that MAN's apron is actually very constrained indeed - already. A solution is needed - remember, the TP is providing principally like-for-like capacity replacement.
What makes people think that throwing more money at the airport will suddenly make more airlines want to use it?
Glad you asked. Well, if we can provide more contact stands at capacity-challenged T3 we already have solid indications that Ryanair and Vueling would be very interested! And that's just for starters. I must take issue with your phraseology here as well. MAG proposes to deliver the ambitious new TP (see mantp website) for GBP850M + GBP150M contingency. That is actually phenomenal value for money if they pull it off. Compare the price-tags applied to similar projects proposed elsewhere. MAG funds development itself, so "throwing around" money doesn't come into it!
If the capacity at Heathrow (or Gatwick for that matter) was upped substantially then I'd wager it would be utilised almost as quickly as it was built - if that was allowed. Up capacity at Manchester by the same sort of magnitude (however it is funded), and I bet it would take quite a lot longer before a lot of it was needed.
MAN is not and has never planned to develop as a replacement for the London Airports system. However, it does seek to redress 'leakage' which has drained from MAN's own catchment area to those airports in the past. MAN's capacity growth is tailored to the requirements of its own 22.5M catchment. The scale of development required or planned at airports in other regions is irrelevant. That is a matter for them.
Cut it any way you want, but the greater demand is in the London area.
Find me any posting on here which has ever suggested otherwise and we can discuss this.
You cannot force airlines to use Manchester rather than London
Nobody is proposing this. MAN is attracting carriers based upon the proposition of its own inherent market of 25M pax per annum and potential growth beyond that. London is not MAN's target market. That would make no sense.
but many will say if I can't serve London I won't bother, because the yields are softer further north even if I could fill all the seats.
I can assure you that carriers evaluating services from MAN are considering the MAN business proposition. There is a large catchment to be tapped here, as around 25M pax this year will testify. MAN attracts business on its own merits, not because it isn't somewhere else. As for yields, these vary by route and carrier. They're very complex. It is unhelpful to generalise or make assumptions on this topic.
So if significant additional central government investment did get put into MAN, where would all the traffic come from to fill the infrastructure that was created?
From the 22.5 million people identified as living in MAN's catchment, from overseas visitors coming in, and from a modest number of additional connecting passengers using local links with carriers such as FlyBe. MAN needs and merits investment to serve the North, not as a London substitute. Get that idea out of your head.
MAN makes a huge contribution to the economy of UKplc. It is every bit as deserving of government support as any airport in the SE ... arguably more so, as MAN has never enjoyed tangible government support for its infrastructure development before. It is overdue its share of state-backed TLC.
Meanwhile, this discussion arose because MAN is alleged to be facing problems when addressing options to expand T3. And we've already discussed the pressing need for that. If there is some grand public utilities superhighway running under the land they need for this expansion, then that is exactly the sort of issue which government funds should be called upon to resolve. If LHR or LGW receive billions in public funding for support work surrounding their proposed developments, MAN deserves equal consideration. And I mean well beyond the millions which relocating those utilities would cost.