Forget that to issue bonds on such a scale, and the rest of the cost from the public purse, would allow the opposition of the day to have a field day, over excessive public borrowing on a project that could not even be costed, due to the unique design.
The government could afford their share of this project, the could fix the "leaking" tax system and remember, the UKs national debt is not that bad in the current climate (76%) and we have the 2nd lowest borrowing rates, even if the current government payed for 100% with borrowed money, it would at most add 4% to that figure
Remember the Government of Japan has a very high level debt, in fact it is enough to to almost bankrupt the nation, but they manage with the fact they borrow from the general public (which is what I am suggesting), now I am not suggesting we should have a national debt of nearly 200%, but we can fund a THA project and if it was done it would create jobs and improve our connections to overseas (and our transport infrastructure)
Of course they could prevent all of this by saying "yes" to R3 and R4 at LHR
Heathrow, Gatwick Stansted and Luton etal, could soon scupper any such plans.
Not if they are all owned by the same government owned company that is also developing the THA project
Rather than wait to become super housing estates, or even more bizzare GA airports..I suggest they would suspend all activity, not allowing a/c to take off or land..
See how long a government would last without any aviation in London. yes the airports would fight back, and Boris and David et al. would have to start using the chunnel.
What happens to Heathrow and other airports is up to the people who end up owning the closed down airports, but what they cannot do is operate them as airports serving commercial traffic
As for you other idea, for that act of "protest" it would be a massive undertaking and do you mean airports in London + SE or the whole country?
Do you mean ownership? Buying out all shareholders?
Or do you mean proper strategic of the asset with ownership being listed but with control denying management accountability to shareholders?
Or do you mean public ownership? Can you put a sum on cost of nationalising?
Your years of research must surely have covered the basics on this? Please be more clear and be l@ser focussed on which of the options above you will be recommending to HM Govt.
What I am calling for HM Government to set up a company called "London Airports Limited" (LAL) it will be a arms length company in the style of Network Rail, only it will be classed at a private company that is 100% owned by the DFT
They will purchase the following companies
Heathrow Airport Limited
Gatwick Airport Limited
London Luton Airport Operations Ltd (The Government can transfer the freehold from the local council to LAL)
Stansted Airport Limited
London Southend Airport Company Ltd
London City Airport Ltd.
Its may also purchase surrounding hotels and offices of those airports
Ferrovial sold a stake of 20% of BAA (now HAH) for nearly £900 million airport, now taking account of the fact they own other airport, making HAH worth £4.5 billion, LHR takes account of lets say 75% of HAH overall traffic, so the starting bid for LAL for LHR is £3.5 Billion
Gatwick was sold by BAA for around £1.5 Billion, which is more or less the current value is it today, so the starting bid for LAL for LHR is £1.6 Billion
The bid for Stansted (as be circulated is around) £1 Billion
Luton is roughly the same size as STN and can serve as much as that airport, so I would put the same value as STN, so around £1billion as well
City was sold in 2006 for £750 million, so the starting bid for LAL for City is £800 million
Overall LAL would have to spend around £7 Billion minimum to buy those airports and remember this is just a estimate based on the information I could find in the public domain and it also depends on how much airport operators want to play hardball as well
You are not a pilot are you - certainly not one who has been into LGW regularly. Hek, man, you cannot get a sheet of paper between the inbounds and outbounds at LGW sometimes. The REAL B.A. setting up shop in LGW?? Not in a million years sonny, LGW would be their worst nightmare.
I have never suggested that I was one, but I have used LGW a fair number of times, its is not that much of a great airport, but it is not as bad as LHR (though that might change), the only reason LHR trumps LGW is that it is placed at a better location, after that comes LGW and then LTN/STN in that list, BA is reluctant to leave LHR and it might as well locate to LGW since that is in a better location than THA in terms of access, if you close that airport then they would move to LTN/STN, remember it is all about location...
That is why BA are based at LHR, not because how good it is, but is location
There is no airpoert in the world that could take all the trafic of the London basin, and nor would any sensibe airport want to. The international hubbers want one thing, and the loco point-to-pointers want something completely different. So let's keep them separate.
Not currently but ATL is being upgraded so that it could cope with the combined demand for London's Airports, also Al Maktoum International Airport is being built to not only cope with that combined demand, but even more, so we can build a airport that would cope with that demand for sure, also there are many airports worldwide that can cope with both full-service and LCC traffic, we cannot make THA viable if there are airports that are in a better location still operating in the region
And mark my words, if Silver-Boris was being constructed, and LHR had been earmarked as a technology park, B.A. and all the other majors would be gleefully making plans to relocate to the Thames
BA and other major airlines don't want to leave LHR, but that would change if they can see that expansion at that airport would not be possible and if they want to serve London, then THA is the only choice
The same goes for LCCs at LGW, STN, LTN and Southend