we wouldn't have to pay to expand LHR for a start Dave...............
We don’t
Sorry, but you clearly have no idea how the airline industry operates, in particular the competitive advantage that results from providing frequency (one of the reasons, in fact, that Little Red has failed to compete effectively with BA on UK domestic routes).
If airlines were compelled only to use wide-body aircraft at LHR the runway capacity problem would disappear overnight, because many of the routes flown by the narrow-body types that account for two-thirds of all Heathrow movements would no longer be viable.
But even the New York example doesn't stand up to examination.
The only narrow-body aircraft used on that route are 757s, as you rightly say, but hardly "3 every hour". In fact there are only 2 757 flights a day (3 on Sundays and Mondays), and those are to Newark (all JFK flights are wide-bodies).
So consolidating those, even if feasible, would hardly "free a fair number of slots".
No, but this is a market economy not a planned economy and airlines fly routes that make money. LHR-JFK/EWR is profitable due to high loads down the pointy end which cross susidises good deals down the back. To make sure you fill the pointy end you need frequency not capacity.
There's a reason why BA don't fly A380s to New York but all the other BA/AA/UA/VS/DL/KU flights are on wide body aircraft as Dave has said.
one of the main reasons was(is) because the 747s are being reserved for shorter long haul to east coast (due to fuel efficiency) and can provide capacity and frequency
Have made all these points, many times, as have others. Why does no one offer a
cohesive counter argument?
Some appear not to understand. It really isn’t that difficult a concept to grasp.