Growth forecasts at LGW upon which the business case for a second runway depend upon, are based on there not being an overnight huge capacity increase at LHR and consequently losing a substantial part of their existing traffic to LHR.
There's two sets of LHR carriers with existing and concurrent operations at LGW, those who are there simply because they can't grow at LHR and those who offer service in a complimentary fashion.
Virgin and BA long haul fall into pot one, BA short haul probably into pot two. (debateable). Aer Lingus serve the region in addition to LHR, whereas Air China, Icelandair and TAP might be expected to consolidate to LHR. Vietnam would also be a better fit for LHR Ithink. There is then the danger that LGW would remain doing what it has always done so well, taking holidaymakers to the sun, with a core easyJet, Monarch, Thomson and Thomas Cook operation. I suspect Norwegian might be tempted by LHR. In any case, constrained capacity at LHR drives LGW growth, if that restriction goes, much of the strength of LGW's growth, perhaps all of it in the short term, is lost.
Exactly, with LHR’s third rwy operating, BA longhaul, VS, and carriers in the "waiting room" would leave LGW for LHR. BA shorthaul would remain as would carriers serving both LGW and LHR as a matter of choice, such as EI, EK, etc., just as BA visits HND and NRT, ORY and CDG, JFK and EWR.
Also think this exodus from LGW would be negated by an influx of services from LTN and STN, along the lines of what U2 has done in recent years.
Would also expect the holiday “bucket and spade” business to remain at LGW.
LGW would save money by not having the immediate expense of a second rwy, but the management may have to revisit its policy on charges for smaller aircraft.
#3088 A variant on that theme would be for Govt to say 'Either LHR R3 or LGW R2 is worth doing. Let's have a preferred option but keep the other one in play just in case something goes wrong with the numbers on the preferred one.' There's a lot more work to be done to nail down the costs of the Heathrow and Gatwick schemes ; the relative costs and the relative public funding component could yet be significant to the decision. Everything has its price-- or almost everything!
Not to have a third rwy at LHR, whether there’s a second at LGW or not, would be an unmitigated disaster for the UK, and Christmas plus all birthdays at once for AMS, CDG and FRA.
#3089 Another variant is to say for example ' On the modest growth scenario, we need one more runway in each of the next two decades, so the financial cases should assume (say) R3 by 2026 and R2 by 2036.' Just because R3 and R2 simultaneously is out doesn't imply that sequentially is out. And I presume R3 and R4 at Heathrow would be a sequential plan anyway.
Yes, on a phased arrangement it is sensible to have a third and fourth at LHR before a second at LGW.
But I suppose it's all moot anyway, as we have already said that the Davis Commission will only propose one option, not two...
…let’s hope it’s the correct one!
anothertyke; I thought similar; LHR has needed a third runway for at least a decade now, and even if it were agreed tomorrow it would be another decade before it was operational, so in reality if LGW were to be allowed a second runway but not before 2030 then surely the traffic will be there by then, even accounting for some of their current operators moving services back to LHR as discussed above?
LHR was declared “full” by the government in 1977, so it is arguable that it has needed extra rwy capacity since then.