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.
It wasn't meant as a derogatory comment but is a phrase used when talking about a specific type of traveller. I will be one myself on Monday when I fly out from Gatwick to Majorca bucket and spade in hand.
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 infrastructure is already being upgraded. Crossrail will allow people to connect to LHR far easier whilst also creating a much needed improved service into London from the west. The M4 around LHR requires major improvements mainly due to the A3/M3 and the existing link from the M4 into LHR is already a problem that needs sorting out. The ground to the north of Heathrow in largely wasteground and expansion will be a benefit to the whole area not just the airport. If BAA is willing to finance a big chunk of it in conjunction with the new runway then so much the better.
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.
The desire comes from the passengers, MAN is only the 'gateway to Yorkshire' due to it being the only option. Travelling from North Yorkshire to MAN for a flight is a huge pain and being able to buy a ticket from Leeds, Doncaster, Humberside, Teeside etc. that connects easily through LHR would be a better option for many. You are right in saying it matters not whether that connection is in London or Amsterdam but it does matter to UK PLC. Flying three quarters full 757/767 over the atlantic from various airports to a hub elsewhere just doesn't make good business sense when passengers from all over Europe could be brought into LHR and put onto larger aircraft to more destinations.
You should urge the government to invest afew billion directly into Yorkshire infrastructure instead. Now that would be really helpful.
Such as HS3? I can see that will face major planning issues and complaints from the NIMBYs up there, however if there was a business case for something as strong as the case the LHR expansion then it should and probably would be under consideration.
Are you aware of the Proposed York Potash tunnel? It is a huge project with a viable business case funded by a private company that is under threat from the North Yorkshire moors association. It is no use complaining about lack of investment when people do not want the end result.
This thread still seems to be a confusion of the need for LHR expansion as a viable business case for Heathrow and a presumed need for a new runway in the South East. The owners of Gatwick are using the publicity surrounding LHR to further their own interests. The Gatwick runway just does not have any bearing on the case for expansion at LHR.
Please can we lay to rest the idea that the south east of England is desperate for a new runway anywhere else.