Originally Posted by
davidjohnson6
However, there is far too much conflict of interest in the owner of Heathrow publishing a report into why Govt should allow Heathrow to do more and why airlines can't go to Gatwick or Stansted (which happen to be either owned by a rival or likely to be soon)
Well there really aren't too many other people in a position to state the blindingly obvious.
Heathrow opened immediately post-war.
Gatwick opened 1958 as a reliever, there were some attempts over the years, both forced and voluntary, to make it go of it, but for example all the US carriers who were required to use it just upped and walked out to Heathrow when the rules changed, they never wanted to go there. It now seems to be degenerating into just a base for Easyjet.
Stansted came along about 1986 as a further reliever, that also had a rise and fall and is again running down into just a Ryanair base, and passengers have fallen off 25% in the last five years.
Both these airports have demonstrated, in particular, that premium passenger demand, and connecting passenger demand just doesn't exist outside Heathrow. Plenty of airline shareholders' money has been spent over the years trying to prove this wrong but finding it is right, there's no need for any additional study. BAA might point this out but it's quite apparent for us all to see. The only success for business travel has been London City, a small niche place.