Quote: "The net result, is it is cheaper and easier to fly KLM to AMS (4 flights a day) and use that as a hub. And at £140 return, it is much cheaper and easier to go to AMS than take the train or car to LHR.
This is the problem with the present London hub. If you make things so difficult and so expensive, people will go elsewhere. And so London loses out, and so does BA lose out. RIP London as a business center. RIP London...."
A ludicrous and ridiculous situation that should not have been allowed to develop. On this we agree, Silver.
However in your recent posts you have been, probably unintentionally, making the argument for a massive LHR expansion so that:
1. the supply of slots won't be greater than the demand;
2. the slot market will disappear and so will the eye-watering costs thereof;
3. more than 2 UK carriers can afford access to LHR;
4. more domestic routes will be available at LHR, expanding choice;
5. more thin routes will be available at LHR, expanding choice;
6. more overseas markets will be available, opening up trade opportunities;
7. more opportunities for inward investment and tourism with more overseas direct links;
8. less delays so less unnecessary polution from aircraft queueing up for take off, or stacking while waiting to land;
9. LHR not at 99% capacity so enough slack in the system to cope when there is bad weather or when things go wrong;
10. more room overall so that the LHR experience becomes better for everyone, whether pax, staff, crews or visitors.