Hi Skippy - I'll try and take these questions in turn, hopefully the formatting works!
Originally Posted by
Skipness One Echo
That's a false assumption, Zac is Richmond MP, upper middle class white London types with few employment ties to LHR. Many of the other boroughs have a different view as the local economy depends on the airport. Same goes for Justine in Putney, much more white and posh and way less dependent on LHR jobs. I found LHR to be more of a noise issue for me in my E14 days than West London as they put the power on turning off base leg to finals. Clapham is another noise sensitive area but hardly local. Hounslow by contrast got used to it and relies on the airport.
It’s far from being a black and white issue.
I'm not sure I agree with this. If you reviewed (and I have no intention of doing so) the local constituencies I suspect you'd see a very strong correlation that both MP's and Opposition candidates stand as being "anti" LHR expansion.
By way of example only, I suspect John McDonnell, whose constituents are especially local to LHR, would say he represents people with close working class ties to LHR. Despite this, he is very much "anti" expansion.
I don't think it's a party political issue, or a socioeconomic issue. Loads of MPs from different backgrounds, geographies and representing different people are "pro" and "anti" LHR expansion for a pretty wide number of reasons.
Originally Posted by
Skipness One Echo
Dobbo Dobbo as a Leeds resident, if no runway 3, LBA-LHR, poor as it is, will likely go. What’s your view on that from the perspective of the wider economy. You support connecting LBA via KLM or simply use MAN?
To take the penultimate point first, I don't see any intrinsic benefit to BA over LHR, as opposed to KLM via AMS, EI via DUB, AF via CDG or LH via FRA or MUC. The same can be said for EK via DXB for that matter...
In terms of LBA-LHR, one of the key points to emerge from the committee sessions was commercial reality. It's all very well LHR asserting that a certain number of regional routes could be served, but the airlines have made the (IMO obvious) point that unless a given route is commercially viable, it won't be served.
The current LBA route is largely a glorified slot sitter (as are some of the rotations to MAN). One of the daily LBA rotations has already been shelved and I think you are correct to say that the current one will likely go as well - sooner rather than later. However, if a third runway emerges (at great cost and with high charges) the glut of slots means the need to "slot sit" has vanished. This might make it as likely that the route goes in a third runway scenario as otherwise.
There is always BE, but they have been as vocal as any in explaining the problems they face with the current charges. Unless something new emerges (e.g. Subsidy) I think we can count them out.