As a slight aside no finer example than the constant outpouring of support from @Telegraph who even this week ran the headline in their business column
" 6 out of 10 MPs support expansion at Heathrow,
This utterly misleading headline suggested a vast majority of our MPs support this, quite frankly its utter BULL@@@@
When you read the detail only 140 MPs were actually questioned , the 6 out of 10 figure relates to them.
how about an equally misleading line therefore ...
40% of MPs reject Heathrow ?
Agree that it’s bull, probably more than 60% of MPs support Heathrow expansion. Of course it all depends which MPs are asked.
Discount the usual suspects: Caroline Lucas, Zac Goldsmith, Boris (soon), all the Libdems and a handful of Labour and Conservative.
Most MPs away from London want the expansion so that their areas can once again be linked to Heathrow to connect to the world, in order to aid inward investment, the export drive and regeneration, and have easy access to the many firms with HQs around Heathrow.
For what its worth "a hub" should have been been built in my view out towards the M40 corridor somewhere near the old USAF airfield at Croughton. A large 4 runway airport, where there is room to expand, where the current workforce can get to etc.
Like all the other remote locations suggested - too far out.
On that basis if there is a demand to trade with "The UK" it has to go somewhere, if Manchester benefits so be it. I'm sure you will argue again maybe its false demand based on an inability to get into LHR, maybe it is, I would argue that we have significant capacity in TheNorth that will support a sizeable amount of demand that originates up here.
No, carriers that can’t get LHR slots go to AMS, CDG, FRA, the only other airports with sufficient connectivity and premium pax (they create carriers’ profits). Consequently, LHR expansion is no threat to MAN.
Usually it’s MAN
and LHR, not MAN
instead of LHR, particular with long haul.
Skip, you've mentioned twice now that LHR has been closed to new entrants since 1977. I'm puzzled by this as how come those cheeky Chinese carriers are now operating, not to mention a few airlines from the Middle East for example?
The government declared LHR to be “full” in 1977 but it, and subsequent governments, did sweet FA about it. Carriers come and go, but it’s substitution not expansion.
Isn't it true that when airlines fold or give up slots, those slots become available and slots are traded? Haven't BA effectively cut out some domestic routes and juggled slot pairs to enable them to expand long haul services? Yes, LHR may be constrained overall but there has been scope within the system to allow new airlines to fly and existing carriers to swap less profitable services for more lucrative routes. The number of new services started from LHR in recent years is remarkable considering it's 'full'.
Personally, I prefer to see MAN grow in its own right as a Gateway to the North rather than simply rely on extra traffic because LHR is 'full', which may prove only a temporary benefit as LGW has found.
LGW is the LHR "waiting room", MAN isn't. Of course MAN should “grow in its own right as a Gateway to the North”, there’s no question, but to expect it to be at LHR‘s expense is a fool‘s errand.
Both MAN and LHR, as well as other airports, need to be allowed to expand.