Back to the original question, why is MAN going downhill so fast; does the UK really not support having a 2nd major airport (when the US has at least 20 comparable)? I've been through MAN quite often (dozens of times) and have even chosen at times to fly into MAN instead of LHR when going to London (taking the train down). I've noticed lots of problems and quirks at MAN (very frustrating airport, some trivial problems stay broken for years). I have it on reliable info that this was why BA pulled out of MAN when it could (to dump the labour problems, and not due to unprofitable flights). Charters always dominated at MAN, but now it is nothing but charters and LCC. Token service for the rest. Pretty deadly for the airport in the long run. MAN has tried quite hard to attract premium business (get CX back, for example) but the premium pax traffic simply does not exist for most carriers. Even savvy airlines, like AA, misjudged this (e.g. their MAN-MIA flight had less than half the expected revenue). And that was for a well allianced established airline. For MAN to be an alternative hub to LHR, it has to have a critical mass of flights -- and that is impossible for a single airline to pull off (even BA could not do it). But someone like LH could come in and create a UK hub, if they wanted to have a UK hub, and that would work. MAN is not a bad augment to FRA as a hub, actually (but it looks like LH prefers CPH).