The proposal – from John Whittaker, boss of Peel Holdings – was dismissed as ‘sheer folly’ by Manchester council leader Sir Richard Leese and chief executive Sir Howard Bernstein.
In an open letter, they called the idea ‘breathtaking in its naivety’ and accused Mr Whittaker of letting his business interests in airports ‘cloud’ his judgement.
Manchester council owns 55 per cent of Manchester Airports Group (MAG) – which also includes airports in East Midlands, Humberside and Bournemouth – and, therefore, has the final say.
The other nine Greater Manchester councils own five per cent each.
In the open letter Sir Richard and Sir Howard write: "There is no way that the majority shareholders of Manchester Airport will ever let this Peel proposal get off the ground."
Last year, the airport generated £25m for the councils and Manchester warns that selling it could lead to council tax increases of 20 per cent in the city.
The rejection came as leading economic figures rounded on Mr Whittaker’s suggestion, put forward in a letter to the leaders and chief executives of the 10 councils and revealed by the M.E.N. yesterday.
The letter, – co-signed by Peel’s managing director Andrew Simpson, said the sale of MAG could raise an instant £3bn and attract a further £4bn in private-sector investment.
That would more than double the £3bn in government loans and grants the councils hope to get in return for a peak-hour congestion charge of up to £5 a day.
Critics have also pointed out that Peel already owns a number of airports, including Liverpool John Lennon – Manchester’s main regional rival.
Geoff Muirhead, chief executive of MAG, described the Peel plan as ‘fundamentally flawed’ and pointed to the unique way MAG’s profits are returned for council services.
In a stinging rebuke he said: "Manchester Airport is a huge success story for the north west region. Year on year, MAG has returned excellent profits for the 10 shareholding authorities of Greater Manchester. The same cannot be said of the privately-owned Liverpool John Lennon Airport.
"The debate about the future of the north west transport system is far too important to be subverted by the narrow commercial interests of a single private company."
Colin Sinclair, chief executive of inward investment agency Midas, whose role includes attracting businesses to Greater Manchester, said the airport was the ‘jewel’ in Manchester’s economic crown and should not be sold.
He said: "The suggestion that the airport should be sold to fund essential improvements to the transport infrastructure is a complete distraction from the key issues facing our economy."
John Merry, leader of Salford council, said the airport had thrived and prospered under local authority control.
He said: "I am extremely disappointed that Peel, who contribute in so many other ways to the development of the Manchester economy, could suggest something that would potentially wreck it."
Mike Chambers, Oldham’s deputy chief executive, said: "Officers at the council are considering the letter along with their Greater Manchester colleagues."
Leaders of the other councils involved declined to comment.
Peel bosses, whose empire includes the Trafford Centre, have said there is no connection between their business interests and the suggestion that MAG be sold.
The idea seemed to be winning support on the M.E.N.’s website last night.
An exclusive poll on manchestereveningnews.co.uk showed 82 per cent of respondents would prefer to sell Manchester Airport to fund the Metrolink extension than introduce a congestion charge.
Peel boss Mr Simpson said: "Sir Richard Leese and Sir Howard Bernstein are dismissing this alternative without any proper debate or review to assess its merits. They seem to be forgetting their commitment not to go forward with damaging road charging proposals unless they have the support of the public and the support of business. It is clear that they do not.
"Last year, Manchester Airport paid a dividend of £25m. Nine of the councils received only £1.25mn in dividend, equivalent to less that £10-a-year council tax. If they sold the airport and put the money in the bank the councils would earn over £150m in interest per year.
"Manchester has no need to own airports in Bournemouth, Hull and Derby. Manchester Airport’s passenger growth has ground to a halt and it is bottom of the pile of major airports. Privatising the airport would give it fresh impetus and capital for expansion to the benefit of the whole region.
"Peel’s proposal is a genuine alternative to road charging and would fund massive transport improvements.
"We only wish to engage in a reasoned debate on the alternatives to ensure that the right decision is made for the region as a whole."
What do you think of the suggestion to sell the airport? Have your say.
Tweet

Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
The Right to Reply (04/07/2007 at 10:09)
Simon B, www.manchestertolltax.com (04/07/2007 at 10:35)
Year and Months spent looking at the Congestion Charge.
Time spent looking at this, less than 24 hours.
Simon B, www.manchestertolltax.com (04/07/2007 at 11:28)
This is stupid.
the 2 billion loan is our tax money, we have already paid this 2 billion pounds in tax.
Now they want to lend it to AGMA.
and make us pay for it a second time.
Is this some sick joke.
Come on lets fight it
Manchester Against Road Tolls
MART website
www.manchestertolltax.com
The petition
www.gopetition.com/online/12888.html
3Amp (04/07/2007 at 11:45)
So, as council tax payer, and therefore shareholder in the airport, could someone tell me whats happening to those profits?
Andrew Longdon (04/07/2007 at 12:00)
I notice the MEN poll question is "How would you rather fund the Metrolink extension?" Doesn't mention any other form of public transport. I think the Metrolink is a white elephent and offers no alternative for 90% of Greater Manchester's commuters
Pete (04/07/2007 at 12:07)
A valid option dismissed out of hand - typical.
Neutral (04/07/2007 at 12:38)
More than you would imagine.
Why was the airport idea dismissed so quickly.
Easy, it makes no economic, social or environmental sense.
Do you really think this is a 'new' suggestion.
Come on.
Dave Sherwood, Hollins Green (04/07/2007 at 12:45)
Tony North-Hearn, Stockport (04/07/2007 at 12:49)
Simon B, www.manchestertolltax.com (04/07/2007 at 12:54)
I think the rejection of the airport by AGMA and the GMPTA is nothing more than a knee jerk reaction.
Neutral, your style and tone feels very familiar.
NB, Eccles (04/07/2007 at 13:05)
In answer to what currently happens to the profits from Manchester Airport... they go back to the local authorities and help prevent the council tax being even higher than it already is!
Lets not forget Peel Holdings already has one airport in the area... namely the 'original' Manchester airport at Barton. However they don't have a great track record of running airports, but that doesn't matter much since if they close they have plenty of land left for other developments.
ruth davis (04/07/2007 at 13:19)
lets make them green (04/07/2007 at 13:21)
Mr Blue Urmston (04/07/2007 at 13:46)
You seem very quick to pimp www.manchestertolltax.com on every post that you make. Here's a suggestion for you.
Get the major sponsor of that site, Peel Holdings, to sell their airports and use the money to tackle the congestion created by the Trafford Centre. We had no congestion in Urmston until that place was built.
S P In exile, Tameside (04/07/2007 at 13:57)
I was always taught if you want anything save up for it, and if you can't afford it don't buy it.
What right has these councillors got to saddle us with this amount of debt,
which could be the ruination of Manchester and the other councils..
So if the councils achieve their aim to empty Manchester of people and business who pays then,
certainly not the motorist there not there anymore, no it will be the tax payer in the form of paying more council tax.
Such a large amount of debt that will affect every person in the ten council areas should be put to the voters
democratically and openly in the form of a referendum.
Anything less, then becomes undemocratic and a dictatorship.
I just wouldn't trust these councillors to organise the preverbal drink in the brewery.
Bobby (04/07/2007 at 14:22)
3Amp (04/07/2007 at 14:26)
Before just about everybody jumps on the "Sell the Airport Bandwagon" have the effects of selling the airport been considered?
1. The Councils are referring to the Airport as profitable, which means that a level of this profit is going straight into council funds which, without some major form of corruption (please save that argument for another story) it is directly funding other sevices in our boroughs.
2. Yes, selling the airport would raise a great deal of revenue, but startup capital must also be met by running costs, and upgrade costs a few years later.
Take for example how the Alty part of metrolink now being closed for essential upgrades as they built it on the cheap in the 80s - shocker! Part of the govt allocation is going to fund that as Metrolink can't afford its' own running costs!
Selling off key assets (and as long as it turns in a profit and contributes to the local economy, the airport is key asset) to fund a project on only a short term basis is a lose lose situation.
I wouldn't trust many councillors as far as I could drop-kick them, but they are right about not selling the airport.
By selling the Airport we may get the initial Public Transport changes, but in a few years we'd see increases in council tax, public service cuts or congestion charging introduced as the councils could no longer afford the upkeep and renewal of the network.
For a so-called business man this is one of the single most stupid and short-sighted ideas I've ever heard.
That is, of course, unless he's planing to make a bid for it in which case it is a stroke of sneaky mastery to humble any councillor!
lets make them green (04/07/2007 at 14:40)
lets make them green (04/07/2007 at 14:43)
Simon B, www.manchestertolltax.com (04/07/2007 at 15:01)
How many councillors are there spread over the 10 councils
Remember they will not be paying the congestion charge, they will claiming it all back in expenses.
Bobby (04/07/2007 at 15:08)
Robert Tocker, Cadishead (04/07/2007 at 15:18)
Neutral (04/07/2007 at 15:29)
I have no hesitation in saying I am not entirely confident in the proposals put forward so far. I don't know if the finances are thorough enough for me to believe the scheme is feasible, nor do I think that Metrolink is necessarily the be all and end all when it comes to designing a solution to the possible problem - yet it features heavily it seems.
However, I find that people who come on everyday with consistent negative comments, promoting a site that is quite actively campaigning against something without fully understanding it, and unwilling to engage in any debate are, quite frankly, not going to put themselves in a position which favours them.
I speak from experience but not from bias.
Simon B, www.manchestertolltax.com (04/07/2007 at 15:32)
Get the message across to these fat cats that we will not accept a Congestion Charge.
MART website
www.manchestertolltax.com
The MART petition
www.gopetition.com/online/12888.html
dancing in the streets (04/07/2007 at 15:37)