Of course I am referring to Manchester Airport- there isn’t another airport south of Lothian that compares to it and yes getting over the Pennines can be tough but still it’s only 40 miles from Leeds and even at the worst it remains considerable quicker to get to via ground transport than ANY of the London options from Yorkshire and Derbyshire .
40 miles from Leeds maybe but having to travel from north of Leeds or East out and past York is a pain. Just getting to the M62 takes a long time for many and if you have an early morning flight in winter then the M62 is no fun. There is a direct train but, again, if you are not on the line from Leeds it's not convenient at all. The people who are local to MAN reap the benefits whilst others further afield have no option other than to hike over the pennines or go via AMS. Compare this to getting a taxi to LBA, Humberside or Durham and a quick shuttle down to LHR and there is no contest.
Rutan 16, I think you'll find that Prophead is more than happy for LHR to get the whole of the UK as its catchment area while other airports like MAN's reduce.
A ridiculous comment. If any airport can support a route then it will be taken up by an airline. LHR will not force anyone to use it and airlines are free to fly from where they want. I can only assume that by making those comments you know MAN cannot support some routes without the travellers forced to travel from far away and that these people will use a LHR hub instead. If that is the case then why should they be made to be inconvenienced just to support your local airport?
Would it really be in the overall national interest if NCL lost its EK flight, EDI its QR, BHX its AI or MAN its CX so airlines could boost already good frequencies from LHR?
Why would they lose them? If CX can fill an aircraft from a much cheaper airport then why would it axe it? If, however, the only reason these flights can be viable is because large numbers of passengers are forced to undergo long and inconvenient journeys then it is in those passengers interests to get an easier option.
Originally, I thought the purpose of setting up the Airport Commission was to assess the need to meet airport capacity in the South East. Wasn't it later that a requirement to retain the UK's hub status was added in the final brief?
It was almost tantamount to pointing the Commission in the right direction so they came up with the right conclusion, but I shouldn't be so cynical.
No, originally a new runway at LHR had all but been approved and it wasn't until BAA were forced to sell Gatwick that the new owners decided they wanted one too.