What "share of this project"? Why would the government, even if had the resources of a sovereign wealth fund, or another equivelant, spend money on airports when it clearly believes this sector to be strictly part of the private sector?
In the current circumstances how could it be justified as a sensible use of taxpayers’ money?
Surely under a free market system as favoured by Labour and the Conservatives, and required by the single European market, the role of the government is not to obstruct airport expansion where the free market requires it.
The "share" of the budget that will come from the government will have to be decided by them themselves, it might be 100% or it might be less, we would have to see, the government could afford to fund the project without too much strain on its finances
If this airport was built, then it would create jobs in terms of building this airport it would improve connections overseas to the UK, due to the fact there would be space for additional flights
So there would be quite a big benefit if it was built, but it only should be done if they refuse to expand LHR (which would cost them nothing), the Tories are being hypocrites in relation to this, they support the free-market and private enterprise, yet their interference in the running of London's Airports is of such a extent that they might as well own the airports
I'm surprised BAA/HAH is even bothering to continue owning-running LHR due to the hindrances the governments puts towards the airport
Japan has a system of publicly owned airports, the UK does not. Is Japan a role model to follow in this case?
Many "free-market" nations have state owned airports, as are most airports in the "regions" over here, remember it is the governments fault that London's Airports are in such a mess, considering that they failed to plan for the development of London's aviation infrastructure Post-WW2 when they where in charge of those airports and the fact they are stopping expansion and thus hindering the running and operation of the now privately-owned airports to a great extent
So really it is up to the government to either allow the expansion of LHR or deal with it itself with THA
They could prevent this anyway, and almost certainly will, whether or not they approve a third rwy and/or fourth rwy at Heathrow.
They wish they could, in fact that is what they promised in 2010, but since then the pressure from businesses, airlines, their backers and even their own supporters/MPs is such that they cannot do nothing, that is why they have launched the commission in relation to this
But the trouble is that the pressure is not big enough to make a final decision now, what happens to LHR and other airports depends on who wins the election in 2015, if Labour win they are pretty much give the go head for expansion, they have nothing to lose politically doing that (the area around LHR, LGW etc is not exactly full of Labour supporters)
Yes, very good, but you fail to explain any reasons why the government would follow this course of action. What does it achieve? How much higher would APD, or taxes in general, have to be to pay for it all?
They would have to this to make sure a THA can happen, otherwise it would just down the drain or you would have difficulties with the owners of those airports, this would only happen of course if they cannot find the potlical will to expand LHR
If I was running things, I would not increase APD (it is already too high and needs to come down), it would come from tax reclaimed from evaders and avoiders and maybe some tax rises like on income/corporation etc
So LHR is only worth £0.1 billion more than LGW? You’re having a laugh!
How much over their market value would have to pay to the airport owners in order to bribe them to give up their role in the aviation industry?
Think of the compensation for BAA and others for the future profits they would be losing.
Wouldn’t it just be much easier for Call-Me-Dave to grow a backbone and a pair and allow LHR expansion?
Sorry I meant LGW was worth £1.6 Billion and LHR £3.5 billion, that £7 Billion figure does not include GA airports that would have to be bought as well (along with SOU) so that they cannot compete with THA in London + SE
Remember the final figure would depend on what the surveyor's values those airports and how much the owners want to play hardball, but it is likely to be a fair bit higher
Hence it would be easier to just allow expansion of LHR, trouble is that they have not the political will to do so and that is unlikely to change, so LHR future would be decided what Labour would do once they get into power, they are more likely to approve the project however
Nonsense, BA is at LHR because its always been there and the same applies to its predecessors BOAC and BEA (apart from BEA’s move from NHT to LHR in 1953). Why waste money moving for no good reason? When BA‘s predecessors consolidated at LHR there was nowhere else to go.
Because it is in the best location out of all of London's Airports, hence they are not going to leave unless if it is shut down, If Croydon was still around and they where allowed to expand/upgrade it to today's standard, then BA and other airlines would be based there
If LHR was never built and Croydon was shut, then BA (and its predecessors) would have moved to Gatwick and would have a large presence there even before they bought BCal