Viscount
MA extended the west apron, infilled the B1D area and added new stands in the passing bay nr T3, all within the last five years.
Adola
You don't know how much I know. More than you, I bet.
Building a new T1 then demolishing the old one is technically possible (what isn't?) but farcical, expensive and risky. Yes they might keep the piers as stands, but by the time you've left circulation space for a/c and handlers and buses they'll be laying concrete at a postage stamp sized piece at a time, which is expensive, lengthy and leads to an inferior product at the end.
And at some point they'd need to close the piers to fill in the gaps in the concrete so the combined capacity of old and new T1 will be nil for quite a while. Where are those movts going to be handled then? Customer service anyone?
And is there enough space between S200 and T3 and the rail station to get meaningful taxiways in and out to the new terminal, which is going to be a compromised site to start with?
The office block at the Station is empty because there's no demand and the rents are far too high. That's also why Oly House is full of MA staff; because the airlines left there too as the rents were too high. Most MA staff don't even need to be on site (eg HR, Finance, Payroll, and mostl of Group) - an HR officer could be 100 miles away but would be contactable by phone or email.
MA doesn't do risk, so I suspect they'll order a feasibility study to get high order costs then bin it because it's too expensive, complicated, lengthy and most of all risky.
Finally - so they're putting up charges eh? That'll bring the airlines back, not. The whole point of CAA regulation was to protect customers from monopolistic price increases. Now there's viable competition from other airports the regulators have rightly dropped the monopoly issue but it's up to the free market now. Put the costs up too much and airlines will continue to walk.
Better to keep a lid on costs and charges (like any business) and focus on better customer service for the existing customer levels. Why is continuous passenger growth desirable? I really can't understand seeking more when the investment costs are so risky and the current service levels are still so poor.
Bring on aviation fuel tax I say.