This whole debate has a child like quality. People want power without power stations.............
So you are effectively saying the whole of central London is populated by nimbys?
When we had the local debate here, over (much smaller) CVT, the word "nimby" was often used against those opposing the airport, including by myself.
Although I didn't live near the argument, I pointed out that my street has 6 pubs on it, despite being in a "residential" area, and that it was not my position to complain about the noise they caused, given the very reasons you mention.
I think we ought to append the phrase nimby into two forms:
"NIMBY - because actually, I think there is somewhere better for this" and
"NIMBY / BANANA" - build absolutely nothing, anywhere, NEVER at-all!
My other argument for CVT was that it has a tiny noise footprint compared to the nearest alternative, which was BHX.
My argument was - how can you say airlines should go to BHX when they will disturb 5x as many people as they would if they used CVT?
In the case of STN or LGW v LHR, the noise argument is EVEN MORE skewed than that - more like 20:1.
Anyone pointing at LGW and STN does not understand how a commercial market works with reference to a strategic hub airport of national importance.
I am very well aware of the arguments in terms of hubs v ptp. If LHR's runways were aligned N-S, I might take a different view, but they are not.
Having read through the gov-guff yesterday, there was one hell of a lot of focus on the BRICS, which in 2002 accounted for 5% of passengers to UK airports. Now they've gone up to a whopping 6%! The biggest growth has come from the former Eastern Bloc who are now EU members - e.g. 750% for Poland v. 40% for the BRICS.
Not one new route to Poland has been added by the legacy carriers (iirc, BA used to do LGW-KRK, now gone). Even MOW is within range of a 738 / 321.
Of course, a hub operation means more spokes can be connected to each other, but the revenue gain from having more transfer traffic is marginal.
The reason for promoting the hub is that routes that might otherwise be too thin can start. The question for you is -
just how much more valuable is it to us to go after these routes, as opposed to adding capacity on existing routes, or serving the local market with more loco traffic?
Remember, even with LHR3, we go from having 2 runways serving a "major hub" operation and 5 that don't to 3:5. Whatever happens at LHR, the overall London market is still going to be dispersed through multiple airports.
Only in the last week, people are now seriously floating the idea of a fourth runway at Heathrow, something I thought we'd never see.
Yes, very good point. As already mentioned, this is very much along the lines of "ask for 4, accept 3".
I also suspect that this lobby is a response to the Fantasy Island promotion also gaining steam. Back in 03, when Cliffe was proposed, it was widely accepted that this was so the govt could say "well we aren't building Cliffe, LHR 3 is quite reasonable in comparisosn".
For Fantasy Island to work, you have to close LHR, no question in my view.
Agreed!
You then need to pay BAA, a major sum of money above and beyond the market rate of the land
The market rate of the land as
land isn't that much. So you'd have to pay them above the market rate of the land as the
world's busiest international airport. Ouch, that is going to sting!
at the end of a fairly long court case I would guess
Oh yes! The airlines would sue too. What about the value of their slots? (OK, slight red herring, they would fall with R3 too, but the lawyers will make a meal of it).
Then what happens when the other (now non BAA) airports get involved - "why are you subsidising the surface access to this airport" and so on!
, then write off all investment in Crossrail at LHR, the Heathrow Express and Connect then demolish the still new Terminal 5 and Terminal 2.
Not written off, more marked down.
To redevelop this site in a way which justifies the infra that is already there, you'd have to start building tall, essentially Canary Wharf Mk2. And then, I think the CPRE would be stepping in saying "you
can't close this airport and turn it into tower blocks"!
AS previously mentioned, terminal buildings are not like grand old station halls - change of use would be a challenge, especially as the 21st Century society would try to get them listed.