Has someone just thought of this
This SHOULD have been basis for any any / all future debates regarding not only LHR but the UK aviation policy in general.
Come on. You can have 5, 6,7 etc terminals at LHR and as many runways as you like, BUT - and this isnt rocket-science, the sky above and surrounding LHR will always be the same size with the same constraints, made worse by the ever increasing load being placed on LHR its self. This then spills over causing delays and congestion at other airports in the area. Worse still, when the aircraft take delays, it then has a knock-on efect and impacts on airports further afield...
Its common sense to 'spread the joy' around the country. Irrespective of the old bland and usual 'excuses' of ... LHR is where people want to fly ..., Its the capital city of the UK ..., Demand dictates LHR is used ...
Simlpy, LHR and the southeast is operating at capacity and even overcapacity.
For US bound carriers, why not use airports further north in the UK, and save a little fuel. Instead of pax having to fly south from Scotland, to fly back up over on their US flight, use a Scottish airport for the longhaul sector and let the joining pax commute up from London to join the flight. It IS feasable and there IS ample capacity on the ground, and more than enough airspace. Just because its not happening now (BA VS UA etc etc) doesnt mean it cant. People will just have to fly north if they want to fly. Do you honestly think people will stop flying just because they have to fly north to catch their flight?