I'd like to know how they're calculating that LGW offers a better financial return. Is it just a case of meddling with them to make it sound that way?
The cost benefit analysis for Heathrow is damaged by TfL looking to suck as much money as they can (as you would) for their own budgets attached to anything Heathrow. So their costs are somewhat inflated, whereas HAL's are likely under-counted (again, as you would expect). HMG needs to crack on and make progress, it's beyond a joke. If not LHR, then LGW but would lack any serious long haul inbound. My main worry about Gatters is that they lose an anchor carrier every few years that really hurts them.
Laker, Dan Air, Air Europe, 1991 LHR opening lost them a load of long haul, VS original core long haul, BA's hub, XLA, MON and if I was a betting man, DY collapse at the next economic slowdown, and the majority of LGW's long haul growth is coming from them.
Of course a vote in parliament only gets over the political hurdle (assuming they don't create another legal problem in the process). The legal, financial and deliverability impediments remain.
Agreed, but similar issues will arise at Gatters and the arguement will flip again. I am getting dizzy (!)
1 - John McDonnell is hardly a fan of LHR expansion, so there is reason to believe any Labour government would not support the scheme: and
OK, please don't scare me, I have voted Labour in the past, but this fellow and his far-left cohorts are frightening people, especially if you are Jewish. I cannot countenance the country thinking Ed Milliband was unsuitable then deciding that Gerry Adam's best mate was the answer..... I of course, may well be wrong, on which case a new runway will be the least of our concerns.