Silver, you’re being way too subjective! All your arguments appear to be based on a particular loathing of LHR. Can understand exactly where you’re coming from (would always move heaven and earth to avoid CDG) but I am not, and could not, objectively contribute to a CDG thread!
The main problems with LHR:
(1) it is running at 98-99% capacity so the slightest problem has dire consequences;
(2) there are often long waits to take off and land, though not as bad as at CDG in my experience (sorry!);
(3) occasional waits for a stand to become available on arrival because the previous occupant is still waiting to join the queue for take off;
(4) there are not enough destinations compared to the other 4 main European hubs;
(5) an appalling lack of domestic connections, just 7 airports in 6 cities;
(6) a lack of any non-LHR-based UK carriers operating to/from the airport, including “no frills“, although high airport charges and APD may also have a bearing on this (as well as slot costs of course);
(7) there are sometimes queues at border control (as at many airports);
(8) a lack of dedicated landside terminal transfer buses requiring the use of public buses/trains, some of which are only a half-hourly service but are free, or the underground which isn’t.
(9) scattered terminals require airside transfers by bus, although grouping airlines by alliance is reducing this;
(10) public transport access could be improved.
Numbers 1-6 could be resolved by runway expansion so that the airport no longer runs at capacity and the scarcity, and therefore the cost, of slots is no longer an issue. Silver could then have his much needed commuter flights. Number 7 is the responsibility of the Home Office, and number 10 can apply anywhere.
Zooker is clearly right that no one from the North/Scotland WANTS to “route via London”, and for many destinations they do not need to. But where it is necessary to change planes, they should at least have the option of changing at LHR. For example, KL links 15 UK airports to AMS, 9 of which are in the North/Scotland. It should be about choice and LHR’s lack of capacity is stifling it. Lack of connectivity to LHR is affecting the viability of smaller regional airports, for example, MME. PLH, as mentioned above, has already closed.
Skipness’s listing of the domestic routes that have gone makes tragic reading (wasn’t LPL on that list, or did that finish earlier?). It also illustrates for how long LHR has had capacity problems. Even if the these were addressed soon, reinstating domestic routes could be problematic because of high airport charges and the absurd expense and structure of air passenger duty (APD).
It is good that Jabird has mentioned Japan, because it illustrates well the fact that the existance of high speed rail does not eliminate the need for domestic flights as is constantly suggested by pro-HS2 lobbies, anti-LHR lobbies, and some government ministers who ought to know better.
The main Japanese trunk route Tokyo-Osaka, illustrates this well. A high speed train leaves every 10 minutes. There are also around 50 flights between the two cities (all airports) most days, about half of which are “wide-body” aircraft. HND is still mostly domestic and is handles nearly as many pax as LHR.
Similarly, despite Madrid and Barcelona having a new high speed train link, there are still some 40 flights/day between them. If the HS2 is ever built, provided that Heathrow expansion is completed by then, it will be the same in the UK.
Why? it’s obvious, because new routes and links open up new opportunities and make new journeys viable. This explains the success of the “no-frills” operations and why new motorways fill up so quickly.
By the way, forget about LHR closing, even if Silver’s island is built.