Since when did TfL have an airports directorate? Mass transport executives should be there to provide the links to the airports, not to decide where these airports should be. TfL deserve a lot of respect for a lot of what they do, but they are clearly well out of their depth (or more like wading in sinking sands) on this one.
Well it is quite a wordy report, but it seems to be focussed on the case for creating extra demand, rather than satisfying latent demand. Of course, more transfer traffic is good business for the airline(s) that handle(s) it, but I just don't get the virtuous cycle.
Sure, a leads to be which in turns leads back to more of a, but there doesn't seem to be any appreciation of how the additional costs and declining yields of this model would lead to an economic case.
Let's just say, for argument's sake that LHR max (no new runways) can expand out to 90m ppa, and a third runway takes this to 120m. Let's give Fantasy Boris Island 150m pppa. So net gain for R3 is 30m, but the problem with FBI is that you need to build out for the 90m just to replace what LHR can handle anyway. So the net gain for FBI is actually just 30m ppa, albeit with shiny new facilities and a smoother layout.
Problem is, Boris has already said FBI is going to come in at £80bn (+?), compared to around £8bn for R3, the latter still likely to be largely from private sources.
So the net gain using my very crude back of an E-Lites packet maths is that FBI is going to cost you 10x as much for twice the net gain in passengers.
Then you weigh in that many flights which aren't dealt with by LHR will still take place, but just from LGW instead. So Gatters gets the crums - those services which are largely leisure, and mainly O&D. So the diminishing returns from providing extra capacity over and above what could be done at LHR just make the case for FBI even weaker.