I don't that often see eye to eye with what EZY says or does on a number of things but I have to say I agree with pretty much everything they're saying here.
Key points I see value in are...
- Gatwick would require pre-funding (significant increase in charges prior to runway opening) which would more heavily impact short-haul leisure passengers than the premium long-haul passengers at Heathrow.
- Heathrow would attract low-cost airlines like EasyJet. Direct competition with legacy carriers will bring down fares on short-haul routes. 70% of Gatwick's short-haul is already low-cost carriers, less future competition and alongside pre-funding, fares for passengers will increase.
- Heathrow is far more flexible in terms of catering for future demand. Gatwick depends more on the success of low-cost long-haul carriers (which I agree for reasons stated in report are unlikely to be successful long-term)
There's still a few points though that I don't agree so much on.
- I think EZY overemphasise the extent to which people want to use primary airports. To me, the case they make isn't so much about Heathrow being a primary or hub airport, but instead more competition (to lower fares) and better catering for various future demands.
- I think they also under-estimate the growth at the other London airports LTN, STN, LCY and SEN. I think more than 39 million passengers will be using LTN, STN and SEN collectively by 2030. That's only about 5 million more than today.
- Also the route network they have designed for Heathrow. This surely is more just for show. It's purely based on route networks that exist today. I can't see how you can develop an accurate route network for 20 years down the line. It gives nothing more than a rough indication to the size of the network they might have.