Whilst we within the industry like to dwell upon connectivity, hubbing and the allure of new exotic business destinations, the truth is that the majority of growth in demand from London can be expected on traditional favourite routes such as Dublin, Malaga and Tenerife. Expanded services to destinations such as these can be operated very successfully from LGW, provided that capacity to accommodate them is created there. STN and LTN can also extend their role in these leisure-heavy markets. Any suggestion that the LGW option should be discarded because it won't appeal to business pax or hub transfer pax misses the point. Leisure travel matters too, and (subject to a healthy economy) will generate growth which London's airports system must accommodate. Twenty years from now, which of these two numbers do you expect to be higher: a) pax flying London to Tenerife over and above the 2015 total; b) pax flying London to Chongqing?
Like it or not, point-to-point leisure travel originating in the SE will constitute a massive proportion of growth in demand. This is the 'bread and butter'. And the LGW option is perfectly capable of addressing this need in a market segment which it already dominates.
The factor which most contributors here carefully avoid addressing is the financial price-tags attached to all of these proposals. If the price of the LGW option can be described as exorbitant, what adjective must be attached to the LHR proposals? Outrageous, stratospheric, scandalous? None of these quite cut it. Here is the one I favour: PROHIBITIVE.
Based on the LHR price-tags, the real SE choice could just be LGW or nothing. And LGW R2 - whilst operationally less ideal than LHR - would never be a white elephant. Maybe the industry would be well-advised to back the option which can be practically delivered in the real world.