I guess they wouldn't be wasting time & money with a consultation if there wasn't some realistic prospect of it happening
They are politicians, all they need to do is be
seen to be doing something. Tags will be "green", "new", "carbon neutral", "worth kajillions to the economy" and so forth. As to making Heathrow work better, well there's just too many voters that moved near an airport that's been making too much noise since 1946. Once the massive cost comes in, using the patented Scottish Parliament and Olympics public sector fantasy budgeting formula, triple the figure. Oh and that's taxpayers money incidentally when we're broke. Building a new airport in the sea in Hong Kong didn't have our uneconomic and inflated labour costs and Health and Safety was not so stringent. The price comparison does not fly.
One thing London doesn't lack is capacity, Luton and Stansted all have plenty of room and Southend is coming on stream. Runway three at Heathrow would have been financed by the private sector as well.
This is just a sop to have the same questions asked of Mapiln yet again. A massive vanity project that would be up there with the channel tunnel and HS2. Meanwhile, Oyster's gone up again....different budget if course.