Contrary to what many people would have you believe, Heathrow is not the bane of peoples lives in West London.
Indeed, the airport was there long before most of them.
There may be a number of people that are more concerned with house prices than being close to an airport (Notice how there seems to be more of a problem with noise to the east than there is to the west??)
House prices are only an issue in that they are amongst the
highest in the country.
The presence of the airport is not a problem for house sellers; for buyers, probably.
but don't forget that LHR is responsible for approx. 25,000 jobs.
And the rest!! also don't forget the aviation-related jobs not necesarily on the airport, and don't forget the jobs associated with the businesses and industry located there because of the airport.
Zac Goldsmith to run for London mayor - BBC News
Zac Goldsmith has said on several occasions that he would resign and cause a by-election if Heathrow rwy expansion was approved.
This will also happen if he gets the go ahead to run for mayor after balloting his constituents (and being selected as Conservative candidate).
Coincidence? or does he know something that the rest of us don't?
Letter in today's Yorkshire Post.
Interestingly, even more support for Heathrow rwy expansion from those in the North. Maybe the much criticised (on another thread) Manchester MPs have it right after all?
Picking up Sheds point there are four airports serving as short-medium haul point to point "reliever" airports in the London sytem which can provide enough additional capacity for the next 10-20 years with further increments of development (but no new runways) - Gatwick* itself can probably do another 5-10m, Stansted 15-25m, Luton 15m and Southend can chip in a bit - so together that's circa 50mppa additional.
Don't forget Kidlington: "London-Oxford"!
If we can have just one new runway then the most critical and imediate task for that runway is long-haul / hub capacity - which means Heathrow.
Yes, this is a simple and basic point. Anything else will not resolve the problem of Heathrow operating at 100% capacity.
Shuffling shorthaul leisure and no frills flights from Luton/Stansted to Gatwick (the result of Gatwick rwy expansion) doesn't cut it.
That's why MAG are most afraid of LGW R2 getting the go-ahead. Apart from the impact on STN it would also set back MAN's attempts to grow its LCC traffic, as airlines would have to grab new LGW slots by transferring aircraft from existing bases.
True, but regretably not afraid enough to publicly back Heathrow like other airports outside the Southeast.
But this is all theoretical. In reality, LGW R2 is a financial non-starter. Although it is cheaper than LHR R3 it would still require a very large increase in user charges that LGW's airlines are highly unlikely to stomach. And with easyJet and Virgin opposing LGW R2 it is difficult to see how GAL could raise the finance. GAL R2 is much more likely to require public subsidy than LHR R3, and also to be a another white elephant like BAA's original development of Stansted (which only succeeded due to massive financial support from Heathrow, no longer an option following the breakup of BAA). And there's also the small matter that GAL have said they would need long term protection from new runways being given the go ahead elsewhere in the South East, which I understand would fall foul of 'restraint of trade' legislation.
These are very important and significant points often overlooked by many posters on this and other threads.