I can accept close, as was first suggested, but with all the problems you mention. I just don't get how this has now been watered down to "reduce", as some kind of acceptance that the FBI argument is nonsense.
Bit of a non-sequitur there.
The TfL paper posits two options, were a Thames hub airport to be developed. One, obviously is the closure of Heathrow, releasing the land from reuse.
The other is what TfL term "a significant reduction in size and scope" of LHR - in effect transforming it into a West London equivalent of LCY:
- reduced runway length
- aircraft size limit
- local O&D traffic only
I don't understand how proposing either of those options constitutes "acceptance" that the Thames hub scenario is "nonsense".