Why does T3 need to be demolished ? Alternatively what will demolishing and building a new T3 achieve ? Am wondering if there is a clear need or HAH are just overly keen on capital expenditure.
Because it's a bad use of space with the present configuration of the airport. It was designed to fit in the space allowed by the old cross rwys, as is (the soon to be demolished) LHR-1 and the former LHR-2. The space will be needed for more satelites for both LHR-5 and LHR-1/2.
To see why T3 is so bad, you need an up to date aerial view. You can see how the piers snake away and have then blocked future expansion because they did not think they were going to need so much space. It is a 1950s design, that has been dragged along by 'stick-another-bit-on-there' for 50 years.
Yes, it was opened in 1961 for longhaul, to replace the northside terminal. Over the years bits were added piecemeal and now it's well beyond its sell-by date. It has to go.
However, it's demolition date may be dependent on another rwy and whether LHR-5 will be expanded (to take Oneworld carriers).
Good, it's red herring, a second LGW runway does not address the specific problem.
In a cheeky move, "Gatwick obviously" leaflets are now being distributed under the LHR flightpath.
Is "Taking Britain Further" literature also making an appearance under the LGW flightpath?
Hardly surprising when you consider there's an election coming up in May.
Plenty of Tory seats within "earshot" of LHR / LGW, so lots for the Conservatives to lose - and Labour are hardly likely to stick their head above the parapet and promise extra runways willy-nilly as they will need all the luck they can muster to win outright.
Disagree, airport expansion is not sufficiently high on the list of issues that might make marginal seats change hands.
That said, there aren't many marginal seats under the LHR flightpath: Mary McLeod at Brentford and Isleworth (Con-Lab) is the only one that comes to mind.
If Vince Cable loses the not particularly marginal Twickenham, it will be more to do with the Libdems behavior at the national level as reflected in their current opinion polls showing than any local issue.
Both MPs have nailed their masts to the anti-expansion lobby.
That's the problem with democracy - elections come around every 5 years and infrastructure takes more than 5 years from proposal, through planning to fruition - so in the end we wind up with the usual British mess where too little is built too late and costs too much, leading for even more planning and political buck passing - and yes, yet more cost to still not get it right.
Look at China, no democracy, government not answerable to the NIMBYs, and economy (allegedly) growing apace, along with infrastructure. Question is, would we rather live in China or the UK?
It's not always that simple, many democracies have excellent infrastructure, most totalitarian states have rubbish infrastructure.
But you're right, the government should
not be answerable to NIMBYs, it should have the interests of the nation as its priority.
It's not as if the NIMBY lobby are mainly Conservative or Labour voters.