Addressing Points Raised ...
This is a thread about Heathrow expansion
Which cannot be meaningfully discussed without reference to the alternatives which include LGW R2
the need for Gatwick to build a new runway to cater for the bucket and spade brigade is irrelevant
Given that the debate relates to the provision of sufficient runway capacity to serve the SE in particular, growth in arguably the highest volume sector of the market - leisure travel - is highly relevant. Attaching a derogatory label to leisure travellers does not remove these passengers from the equation. Leisure travellers include some very wealthy people, by the way. And they tend to linger around the terminal longer than business travellers, spending their money as they do. Airport operators like that. These customers aren't a nuisance to be brushed aside to a second-rate facility.
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.
The cost is ABSOLUTELY the issue! Numbers quoted for LHR range from £18Bn (that's BILLION!!!) at the low end to £40Bn at the upper end dependent on which source you believe. And the lower figure appears less credible by the day. All this to up LHR's capacity by a measly one-third. Whilst the direct cost may be financed directly by the BAA, the necessary infrastructure upgrades in the areas immediately surrounding the airport will not be. The airport operator will be expected to contribute, but throwing in an additional £8Bn - £20Bn (dependent on which source you believe) is simply not going to happen. LHR expansion will likely mandate £8Bn+ in support from taxpayer funds. That is a vast sum even at the lower end of forecasts, and the funds so deployed cannot then be used for arguably more deserving and better value public projects elsewhere in the UK. Remember that the regions have not yet enjoyed a single publicly-funded infrastructure project exceeding even ONE billion pounds. Time for some redress.
the need to bring in connecting pax from the regions
There isn't a *need* to bring in connecting pax from the regions. There is a *desire* to do so, but that is a different thing entirely. If that desire cannot be satisfied at a reasonable financial cost, then better that it does not happen at all. The regions offer substantial and growing long-haul capability from airports such as MAN, BHX, GLA, EDI, NCL. And most prominent destinations worldwide can be reliably accessed with just one change at a hub. Whether that be LHR or AMS/FRA/DXB/IST/ORD etc is largely irrelevant to regional travellers. Journey times and tariffs are similar. And besides, BA's penchant for cancelling flights from the UK regions at the first sniff of problems at LHR means that rival hub offerings are seen as more reliable from the point-of-view of regional travellers.
LEEDS Bradford Airport is a gateway to Yorkshire and Heathrow is our gateway to the world
Sorry guys. I realise that civic pride makes for powerful emotions, but MAN is Yorkshire's primary gateway to the world. Unpalatable for some, maybe, but true nonetheless. And MAN's growing long-haul connectivity is actually great news for Yorkshire commerce.
Expansion at Heathrow will provide an additional 11,200 jobs and a potential £9bn to the Yorkshire economy alone
If you esteemed gentlemen genuinely believe that a modest increase in frequency on the EXISTING (!!!) LBA-LHR route will produce these numbers then you need to look hard in the mirror and reconsider your suitability to be entrusted with high office.
We urge Sir Howard Davies and the Airports Commission to recommend growth at Heathrow and the new Government to take urgent and decisive action
You should urge the government to invest afew billion directly into Yorkshire infrastructure instead. Now that would be really helpful.
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.
This is a desirable objective, not a necessity. If it can be provided at reasonable cost then it is worth pursuing. Price projections suggest that it cannot, and therefore this vanity scheme should not progress.
Putting it at Gatwick will just result in a re-distribution of traffic from Stansted, Luton (and Southend) as all these basically serve the same market segment
We are talking about a new runway which is likely to come on stream some 15-20 years hence. None of us can know the future for sure, but it is reasonable to consider very different throughput at London's airports by then. LGW R2 needs to be carefully considered in this context.
If LGW got a new runway it would just result in a large scale redistribution from Stansted
The logical conclusion to be drawn from this statement is that you expect Ryanair to relocate the bulk of their phenomenally successful STN operation to LGW. None of us know the future, but my guess is that they won't.
That's why MAG are most afraid of LGW R2 getting the go-ahead
MAG's alleged concerns for STN will not and should not be allowed to dictate airport capacity needs in the SE. The greater good must prevail.
Apart from the impact on STN it would also set back MAN's attempts to grow its LCC traffic
EasyJet currently operates approximately 238 aircraft (including EasyJet Switzerland); a further 119 are on order. Ryanair operates around 319 aircraft and has a further 266 on order + 100 options. These two carriers base 9 and 8 aircraft respectively at MAN as of Summer 2015. Even allowing for growth, this is a drop in the ocean compared to overall fleet strength. Quite why one would suppose that profitable MAN ops would be specifically victimised to feed LGW expansion is wholly unclear. Beyond these two carriers, there is no reason to suppose that the likes of Jet2 would abandon its Northern heartlands for LGW. Incremental expansion there, perhaps.
airlines would have to grab new LGW slots by transferring aircraft from existing bases.
EasyJet's expansion at LGW has been punctuated by episodes of sudden growth based on opportunist slot-grabs when slots unexpectedly became available at short notice. Construction of R2 at LGW would be anything but short notice. Operators would have years to plan for this eventuality and would have no excuse to offer shareholders if their fleets were not fully primed to seize the opportunity at the appropriate time. Knee-jerk fleet redistribution to "grab" slots should not be an issue.
In reality, LGW R2 is a financial non-starter
It is difficult to dismiss your persuasive arguments against LGW R2 as a contender on financial grounds. It is undeniably outrageously expensive. However, if we accept that assertion then the best solution for the SE has to be NO NEW RUNWAY AT ALL. Because any selected project must make complete sense financially, however desirable at an operational level. The LHR options imply a price-tag which cannot come close to being justified by the marginal benefits on offer ... a one-third increase over and above existing capacity. So if LGW R2 is deemed a financial non-starter (as well) then London and the SE will have to cope with the runway capacity as it exists today. And that wouldn't be a tragedy.
London *wants* to grow as a hub but doesn't actually *need* to. And it shouldn't if the cost is too high. Provincial airports have sufficient capacity to accommodate the needs of their specific regions for decades to come. And if afew London pax have to change planes in DXB (as many Northerners do already) is that really so bad? For a cost saving of upto £40Bn on a project with marginal returns measured by incremental runway slots, maybe 'DO NOTHING' is actually the correct answer.
EDIT: Sorry - Those neat blue quote boxes didn't appear again. My computer doesn't like 'em!