Quote: "It reckons the Treasury prefers Stansted as the solution to London's airport capacity problems."
This is an airport that's losing pax and one that has plenty of capacity. So let's build another rwy there. Who's the imbecile who thought of that one?
If they can't persuade airlines and pax to shift from LHR to LGW, there isn't a cat-in-hell's chance of having them move over to STN.
Quote: "Am I mising something here. Was Stansted not upgraded many years ago to become London's third airport and is half empty. So where is the problem except the airlines what more capacity at Heathrow and Gatwick?
The problem is that major airlines don’t want to use the place and many low cost airlines have moved out or reduced services. That won’t change no matter how many runways are built there unless Heathrow is forced to close which won't happen."
Exactly, it's really is not a difficult concept to understand!
Quote: "Quite. The only way it could be remotely competitive would be if a high-speed rail link were built (as I suppose would have to happen to Boris Island and all those other capricious ideas). "
Even that would make no difference: there isn't sufficient connectivity at STN. In fact there isn't any, it's all point-to-point!
Quote: "in my opinion I think Virgin would do well at Stansted and people need to understand that not all customers live in or like traveling through or around London."
VS had to move its hub to LHR in the late 1980s just to survive. Had it not done so, it would have gone the same way as Laker, BCAL, BUA, etc.: it's that whole business of insufficient connectivity again.
Quote: "And for the record and going back to my previous comment, American Airlines, Continental Airlines Maxjet and Eos have proved that they can fill planes out of Stansted."
Fill planes maybe, but not make money: they're not at STN now!