CooperV,
You raise a good point. To deal with this effectively requires a complete infrastructure that will keep everything moving. It does exist in many places.
I can see a case for closing an airport if nobody (staff, pax, engineers etc.) can get there, but much of the value of LHR is people connecting from aircraft to aircraft.
For a rare event like this it therefore makes sense to keep the global network moving and keep airframes, crews and passengers where they should be in the world. Cost here is expensive for sure, but putting up a few B747, A330, B777, A340 full of stranded pax in nice hotels is not cheap....
The irony is that airports like, Helsinki, Kittila etc. stay open..whilst LHR shuts without a fight. Much of this is surely linked to infrastructure outside the airport, but in the current climate:
1. Is collapsing the LHR network cheaper or more expensive overall for an airline?
2. Is there any compensation to be earned by an airline for the disruption?
3. Is there any worth for an airline to operate at a low pax capacity to maintain the integrity of the network? (in view of Q2 if relevant)
4. What should have happened today?
P.S. I don't subscribe to the shopping centre argument. If this was the case an airport would make sure the way to the airport was cleared, rather like changeover day in a Med resort where you get there only to realise you can't get to your room (plane)...so shopping the only fun to be had by a captive audience.
G