In other news there was no response from Prophead who apparently is out of the country.
Actually I posted just 4 above yours so I haven't gone anywhere.
Whilst we are hearing lots of sound bites , forensic detail around financing is of course totally ignored.
There seems to be a pattern here. The reasons people are against this project seems to change with the wind and now they have all moved on to the high cost of the privately financed portion.
It is important to bear the following points in mind however:
It was way cheaper to do when it was previously approved before all this stick a pin in the SE rubbish came up. How much extra has this added to the cost and been spent already to probably end up with the same result? I'm sure some people have made lots of money out of these endless consultations.
A huge figure will be paid out in compensation payments. When comparing with projects elsewhere in the world can we include the sum paid in compo where it even exists? Can we also
forensically analyse these payments as this element is always open to much abuse.
The investors behind the funding of this project seek to be insured against political meddling. This is completely understandable after the mess the government have made of it and if you had planning approval in place for an extension to your house plus a mortgage approved, then had the approval cancelled and it rolled on for 10 years with ever more costs, wouldn't you ask the same? You would now have paid huge amounts in redesign fees and the bank would probably have pulled out long ago. I would imagine this comes from the investors rather than HAL itself but is entirely understandable. It is not there in case the project is not a success but to protect against more incompetence in the decision making process. Remember investment money for these large projects can usually contain an element made up from peoples pensions and savings investments.
Saying this is a project just for London is like saying the Channel Tunnel should not have been built as it only benefits Folkestone & Dover. It is nationally important and that is not my opinion but that of many regional businesses who all have done their figures. If you can prove this is not the case, rather than just pure speculation and biased fortune telling then lets hear it.
Not sure if this has already been posted but it's from Airport Watch and some of the data was also in the Yorkshire Post.
It is likely that Leeds Bradford Airport would see 4,449 fewer international flights a year by 2030 if the 3rd runway went ahead.
Airport Watch & the Yorkshire Post? No bias there then. I would also be interested to hear how LBA will lose 4,449 international flights.Yes they have lots of them but people will not stop flying direct to Alicante or Rhodes with Jet2 because LHR has a new runway.
Politically I'm an aethist however I cannot BELIEVE that Labour are about to miss such an open goal.
Corbyn's Labour will do whatever their union masters want. Unite etc. will stand to make a fortune from the construction alone nevermind the increase in airport workers once complete.