Any suggestion that the LGW option should be discarded because it won't appeal to business pax or hub transfer pax misses the point
This is a thread about Heathrow expansion, the need for Gatwick to build a new runway to cater for the bucket and spade brigade is irrelevant. It probably won't be needed though if expansion is allowed to go ahead at LHR. This is not the case in reverse.
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.
Heathrow expansion will be financed by the airport operator BAA and whatever investment it can obtain from outside sources. The company has also been an investor in related infrastructure projects such as Crossrail. The cost is not the issue.
LHR and Gatwick are no longer owned by the same company and it is not a matter of choosing between the two. If Gatwick expaands then it will make no difference to LHR. There may be more holiday charters and low cost options but the core of the LHR business will remain in west London, as will the capacity problem and the need to bring in connecting pax from the regions.
If LHR expands then the BA SH and Virgin flights would probably go back to LHR and Gatwick will have the capacity it needs.