I think we can safely assume that if the payback period for R3 is 100 years, it isn't going to happen.
Not payback period, OPENING DATE!!! It was an optimistic estimate for an approximate ending of the dithering, indecison and procrastination on the part of the government.
You may want to read the more recent comments he’s made when the Arora Group suggested they could build it more cheaply.
Is it correct that the Arora Group proposal is for a shorter rwy that doesn't cross the M25 motorway or demolish its hotels? If so, it will be cheaper as it avoids years of disruption on the motorway and can open earlier, so it may become a viable option, time will tell.
But cost is exactly the point. WW is absolutely correct to baulk at cost figures anything like those mentioned. IAG is far better served by the status quo. IAG can expand at Madrid, Barcelona, Dublin, Gatwick and more. Especially if they do eventually take over Norwegian.
Possibly, but the most profitable is Heathrow. Why do you think that carriers are so determined to acquire Heathrow slots at any cost?
I also disagree with your suggestion that the cost of expanding Heathrow should only be compared with other airport upgrade projects. The fact that entire new twin-runway airports can be built in various other countries (including those with high real estate prices) for a fraction the cost of upgrading Heathrow by one third is utterly damning. That's the point and it is valid.
The clue is in the words "various other countries".
First of all, for the sake of argument I support a third runway at LHR, as well as a second usable runway at LGW. No airport should be prevented from expanding and thus becoming inefficient and problematic for passengers.
Of course Gatwick should have a second rwy,
but not instead of a third at Heathrow. In other words, if there is to be only one new rwy, it should be at Heathrow (obviously). If there ares to be two new rwys, then one each at Heathrow and Gatwick. If there are to be three, then two at Heathrow and one at Gatwick. The latter option would bring the rwy capacity of London's two main airports to the same as Paris's: 4 at LHR/CDG and 2 at LGW/ORY. this completely unlikely, but not unreasonable, as London's aviation market is much larger than that of Paris. However, even if governments were not the main obstacle to expansion, the profitability aspect would play a large part in determining commercial viability of such expansion as UK airports are privately owned,
Apologies if the NIMBYs are having a collective heart attack at the thought of three new rwys in the south east.
1) Only two airlines in the UK have the capability in their current form to operate routes to additional domestic airports - these routes need to be operated by smaller E-jet, ATR or C-series equipment. Only BA Cityflier and FlyBE have the fleet, unless there is a new entry, to operate these routes profitably and efficiently.
There may well be new entrants, smaller carriers cannot entertain LHR operations at present, mainly because of slot acquisition costs. This changes dramatically with a new rwy. Of the additional (free) slots 50% would go to new entrants.
2) If these routes were profitable, wouldn't BA (or another airline) be operating them already?
Even if thin domestic routes are profitable, the shortage of slots, makes other routes MORE profitable. Even if some routes are not profitable AT PRESENT, with a new rwy, everything changes, not least the abundance of available of slots and, consequently, the ending of the secondary slot market. This allows an increase in new, perhaps thinner, international routes, many of which will need feeder flights from other UK airports to be viable.
3) Because of point 2) there would need to be government / airport guarantees (can't say I'm a fan of this approach) for certain % of slots being used for certain routes, otherwise the usual suspects will just be doubling down on typical dense routes. Heathrow have stated that Dundee, Prestwick, Carlisle, Norwich, Durham/Tees, Humberside, Doncaster/Sheffield, Liverpool, Derry, Isle of Man, Newquay, Jersey, Guernsey could be operated in addition to those domestic routes currently operated.
It makes sense to ringfence a certain amount of slots for domestic operations, it also makes sense for PSO London flights to use LHR as it increases the potential for flight connections not on offer at other London airports. It is also important for as many domestic routes as possible to be linked to Heathrow in order to boost connectivity and rebalance the economy.
4) Internationally, many routes that LHR have highlighted as potential new markets surely are limited and would prove extremely costly to operate:
From west to east:
United States - Portland, San Antonio potentially limited J traffic and easy connections through existing hubs? Certainly think Orlando and Memphis could work; the former already operated from LGW.
Central America - Guatemala City, San Jose, Panama City - think these are definite growth areas by a time a runway is built, but I think limited to a 787 (or going via MAD).
South America - Quito, Lima - certainly think these would work. Caracas, Belo Hortizonte, Porto Alegre - sceptical about these; the latter two could work if done on the same trip.
Africa - Think Dakar, Entebbe, Dar es Salaam, Durban and Khartoum could work. BA have tried Monrovia previously and pulled out - no suggestion that this is a growth area. Mombasa did have a huge charter presence which seems to have tailed off due political instability. Extremely sceptical about Port Harcourt, Lilongwe and Harare. These routes are bread and butter though against the ME3 who will easily beat everyone on price.
Middle East - Baghdad not exactly going to be a big business/tourist destination anytime soon. Damman high J potentially.
South Asia - Peshawar is one of the most dangerous places in the world, so that's a no from me. Think Goa, Kochi, Thiruvanathapuram, Kathmandu, Kolkata could all work, albeit with lower yields. Think India will become a huge aviation powerhouse by 2030. Having worked over there for 2 months last year it was staggering the increase in human development and just the shear scale. The airlines over there are putting in huge aircraft orders. Again though, bread and butter for the ME3.
China - Wuhan, Chongqing, Nanjing, Fuzhou - probably just scratching the surface for that country.
South East Asia - Penang, Denpasar - I'd say Indonesian aviation is about 10 years behind India, but the likes of Lion are making huge strides in that region.
Far East - Surprised Osaka isn't being operated already.
Oceania - Brisbane is the obvious one, but will depend on "Project Sunrise" - the economics don't really work on Perth...
BTW, Auckland is missing from the list, as are several West Indies destinations currently at LGW (the latter has already started: VS now does LHR-BGI).
By the time the third rwy is up and running there may well be another generation of aircraft available with much improved economics: cleaner, more fuel efficient and even quieter than the current crop. What looks uneconomic now may not be then. Of course many routes currently operated to/from LGW will shift to LHR, that is something that won't change.